COMMENTARY
ON
A
HARMONY OF THE
EVANGELISTS,
MATTHEW, MARK, AND
LUKE,
BY JOHN
CALVIN
TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL LATIN,
AND COLLATED WITH
THE AUTHOR'S FRENCH
VERSION,
BY THE REV. WILLIAM
PRINGLE
VOLUME
FIRST
THE
TRANSLATOR’S
PREFACE
ALL the writings of JOHN CALVIN are marked by
extraordinary vigor, learning, and judgment. Few of them are so well known as
THE INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION — a systematic treatise, which,
though written at the early age of twenty-four, was universally acknowledged to
be a production of the highest ability. Concise and luminous, powerful in
argument, scriptural, devout and practical, it has not been superseded by any
later work. But the fame which he acquired by THE INSTITUTES was fully sustained
by his expository writings, which possess at least equal claims on the attention
of divines. They contributed powerfully to diffuse the pure Gospel of Christ,
commanded the applause of all the Reformed Churches, and received even from
enemies no mean commendation. More than a century after his valuable life had
closed, they occupied a place in every theological library. The learned Matthew
Poole, in the preface to his Synopsis, apologizes for the small number of his
quotations from them, on the express ground that the Commentaries themselves, he
had every reason to believe, were in the hands of all his
readers.
This reputation, after having suffered a partial
eclipse, will soon, in all probability, regain its former brightness. The first
tendency to this improvement was discovered in a neighboring country, where the
distinguishing doctrines of Christianity had long been supplanted by a creed
little removed from infidelity. In Germany, Biblical criticism is almost a
national pursuit. That unconquerable industry which had already crowned her
scholars with laurels in Greek and Roman literature, has given them as
unquestionable a pre-eminence in the field of sacred philology. Had such rare
attainments been always consecrated to the honor of the Redeemer, every good man
would have rejoiced. Unhappily, they were but too frequently employed in
maintaining the most dangerous errors, in opposing every inspired statement
which the mind of man is unable fully to comprehend, in divesting religion of
its spiritual and heavenly character, and in undermining the whole fabric of
revealed truth. But a gracious Providence has raised up other men, whom, though
we may not feel ourselves at liberty to subscribe to all their views, we cannot
but hail as the friends of evangelical truth, and admire for their holy
fortitude in coming
to the help of the Lord,
to the help of the Lord against the mighty,
(<070523>Judges
5:23.)
At the head of this illustrious band it is almost
superfluous to name Professor Tholuck of Halle, admitted by the most competent
judges, both in Britain and on the Continent, to be one of the first biblical
scholars of the age. Having been led by his own researches, and by public
events, to examine the writings of the Reformer, he hastened to draw the
attention of his countrymen to the neglected treasures. His own Commentary on
the Epistle to the Romans afforded an opportunity which was eagerly embraced.
Not satisfied with this brief notice, he wrote an elaborate and masterly
dissertation on “The merits of Calvin as an Interpreter of the Holy
Scriptures,” a translation of which appeared shortly afterwards in the
(American) “Biblical Repository.” He superintended a handsome octavo
edition of Calvin’s Commentaries on the New Testament, printed at Berlin,
and sold at a moderate price. To another eminent interpreter he candidly awards
the honor of having led the way in this
undertaking.
f1a But he was one of the earliest to follow
in the path which had been marked out, and has labored, beyond all his
contemporaries, to make the Commentaries of Calvin more extensively known, and
more highly esteemed.
Our Author has exerted a powerful influence on all
succeeding expositors. They have found their interest in listening to his
instructions, and have been more deeply indebted to him than is generally known.
Many valuable interpretations of passages of Scripture appeared for the first
time in his writings, and have ever since been warmly approved. In other cases,
the views which had been previously held are placed by him in so strong a light
as to remove every doubt, and satisfy the most cautious inquiry. And yet the
stores, from which so much has been drawn, are far from being exhausted, nor is
their value greatly lowered by improvements which have been subsequently made.
The department of History presents an analogous case. Documents which had been
overlooked are carefully examined. Conflicting evidence is more accurately
weighed. Important transactions assume a new aspect, or, at least, are altered
in their subordinate details. Still, there are historians, in whose narrative
the great lines of truth are so powerfully drawn, that the feebler, though more
exact, delineations of other men cannot supply their place.
In the chief moral requisite for such a work Calvin
is excelled by none. He is an honest interpreter. No consideration would have
induced him to wrest the words of Scripture from their plain meaning. Those who
may question his conclusions cannot trace them to an unworthy motive. Timid
theologians will be occasionally startled by his expositions. Though they may
not absolutely impeach the soundness of his doctrine, they will tremble for the
fate of some favorite theory or ingenious argument. With such minds he has no
sympathy. He examines the Scriptures with the humility of one who inquires at
the oracle of God,
(<101623>2
Samuel 16:23,) and proclaims the reply with the faith of one who knows that the
word of the Lord is tried,
(<191830>Psalm
18:30.)
Intimately connected with this integrity of purpose
is the Catholic spirit which he constantly breathes. His labors are dedicated to
no sect, but to the cause of divine truth. If his opinions do not find equal
favor with all true Christians, they are made to feel that he addresses them as
brethren in Christ Jesus. In his eye the Church of Christ is one. He never
forgets the ties which unite all believers to each other and to their exalted
Head. Are there any whose sentiments are hardly distinguishable from those
things which are most surely believed among us,
(<420101>Luke
1:1,) and yet who associate with the name of Calvinism all that is stern
and repulsive? Let them follow the expositions of this master in Israel.
They will find the most remarkable peculiarities of his creed boldly avowed,
but accompanied by other revealed truths to which they had supposed him to be
indifferent, and by no ordinary earnestness of practical exhortation. Amidst his
severest denunciations of doctrinal error, they will not fail to discover the
same enlarged views and Christian forbearance which animated the great apostle
of the Gentiles. Rarely will they behold that sentiment more beautifully
exemplified,
Grace be to all them that
love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity,
(<490624>Ephesians
6:24.)
Learning ought not to be a prominent feature
in a work essentially popular. But the learning of Calvin manifests itself in
the most desirable manner, and adds great weight to his interpretations. Of his
acquaintance with Hebrew it is unnecessary now to speak. His familiarity with
the Greek language appears less in observations on phrases, or allusions to the
various renderings of some passages, than in a close adherence to those shades
of meaning which no translation of the Scriptures can convey. Even when he
appears to have overlooked or mistaken the words, a reference to the original,
which had been studiously kept out of view, will justify the unexpected
remark. f2a
Origen, Chrysostom, and other Greek Fathers, were
among his familiar authors. Classical writers are introduced on every proper
occasion, for illustrating a term, or a custom, or the general principles of
reasoning. Quotations are made from these writers, and from some of their
philosophical treatises, which are seldom even consulted except by those who can
read the language with considerable freedom. To say nothing of the Stagyrite,
every scholar knows, for example, that no Greek prose offers more serious
difficulties than the idiomatic, though fascinating, style of
Plato. f3a
In that minute analysis which is peculiar to modern
criticism, Calvin may have been deficient. That he wanted the skill necessary
for such investigations is not so manifest. The absence of those processes by
which he arrived at his conclusions makes it difficult to determine how far the
subtle elements of language had undergone his scrutiny. If we shall suppose him
to have neglected these matters, our astonishment must be the greater that the
deductions of recent inquirers should have been so largely anticipated.
Conjectures thrown out by Sir Isaac Newton were long afterwards verified by
experiments of extreme labor and delicacy. But Calvin speaks habitually with a
tone of confidence. We must therefore conclude that, like the shrewd remarks to
which the philosopher was pleased to give the name of conjectures, his
discoveries were reached by a shorter route, which other minds could with
difficulty follow. f4a
This extraordinary sagacity was accompanied by
another quality not less needed in an interpreter, a sound judgment, which
leaned neither to ancient usage nor to ingenious novelties, which refused to bow
to the authority of great names, and sternly rebuked the most plausible
sophistry when opposed to the plain and obvious meaning of Scripture. He took a
dispassionate and wide survey, not only of the passage immediately under
consideration, but of kindred expressions or sentiments that were found in any
of the inspired writers. It was left to the industry of later times to collect
parallels, and arrange them on the margin of our Bibles, as an invaluable aid to
interpretation. But his own perusal of the sacred volume supplied him largely
with such materials, and enabled him to draw them out with instinctive readiness
as occasion required.
As we pass along, we meet with direct quotations,
largely but appositely introduced, and tending to confirm the views which he had
adopted. Still more frequently we observe a copious use of that phraseology
which is peculiar to the sacred writers, and which falls on the pious ear with
refreshing melody. In him it rises higher than that felicitous application of
Scripture which our more elegant writers have cultivated for the purpose of
imparting a literary charm to their compositions; for those beauties came to him
unsought while he was aiming at something higher than the mere ornaments of
diction, and the language of Scripture had been so thoroughly interwoven with
his ordinary style, that he must have been frequently unconscious of its
presence. To aid the reader in discovering those allusions, the passages from
which they have been taken are generally marked. The references made by our
Author himself may be supposed to be abundant, and must have struck many persons
as a prominent feature of his writings; but in far more numerous cases, no clue
was given to his authorities, and some pains have been taken to supply the
omissions.
The Latin original has been scrupulously followed.
His own vernacular version gives us some idea of the freedom, spirit, and
elegance, with which he would have accommodated himself to the taste of the
English reader, if it had been executed in our language. But a translator is not
permitted to use the same liberties as the author, and faithfulness demands that
he shall adhere strictly to the copy which is set before him. The meaning has
been given without addition or omission, and even the structure of the sentences
has been followed, so far as that could be done without violating the purity of
English idiom. To exhibit the peculiar excellencies of such a writer, or, where
that could not be done, to find in a modern tongue a suitable equivalent, was no
easy task. His admirably concise diction, and rapid but masterly transitions,
and above all, that rare felicity of expression for which his severest judges
have given him credit, render it difficult to represent the style and manner of
so great a master of composition.
All the assistance that could be derived from our
Author’s French version has been thankfully accepted. It would have been
unwise as well as ungrateful to leave out of view so authoritative an exposition
of his meaning, or to disregard the production of one whose command of his
native tongue is acknowledged by the ablest critics to have anticipated the
elegancies of a later age. “He wrote in Latin,” says
D’Alembert, “as well as is possible in a dead language, and in
French with a purity which was extraordinary for his time. This purity, which is
to the present day admired by our skillful critics, renders his writings greatly
superior to almost all of the same age; as the works of Messieurs de Port Royal
are still distinguished on the same account from the barbarous rhapsodies of
their opponents and contemporaries.” Amidst the driest details of verbal
criticism, there are frequent glimpses of that eloquence which De Thou and other
great men regarded with admiration, and which, when aided by the living voice,
must have told powerfully on his hearers.
It must be observed, however, that the Latin and
French texts have been treated apart, as if they had not proceeded from the same
pen, and have been separated by a broad line which meets the eye of the reader.
The old translators sometimes proceeded as if they had not been aware of the
vernacular copy, and at other times blended it with the original in so strange a
manner, that they appear to follow a path of their own, while they are
faithfully tracking the Author’s footsteps. In the new translations
prepared for the CALVIN SOCIETY, care has been taken to adhere scrupulously to
the Latin text, and at the same time to give the English reader the full benefit
of those illustrations which the Author thought fit to employ in submitting the
work to the perusal of his countrymen. The French translation has been all along
collated with the original; and whenever it contained additional matter, or
removed obscurity by greater copiousness of language, or even when a striking
phrase occurred, the passages have been exhibited and translated at the bottom
of the page.
Notes, partly selected, but chiefly original,
have been added. Some are intended to illustrate a remote allusion, to prevent a
casual expression from being misunderstood, or to bring out more clearly the
Author’s meaning. Others are devoted to history, or to biblical criticism.
Those which have been written by myself, and for which I must be held
responsible, are marked. Ed. All questions of a doctrinal nature have been
excluded from these Notes. The publications of the CALVIN TRANSLATION
SOCIETY are addressed to the whole Church of Christ, and ought not to wear the
badge of any of the sections into which that Church is unhappily divided. In
every thing that relates to doctrine the Author has been left in full possession
of the field.
It will scarcely be supposed that every
interpretation contained in this work has my entire concurrence. The great
principles inculcated in the writings of Calvin have my cordial approbation;
and, indeed, I could scarcely name a writer with whose views of Divine truth I
more fully coincide. As a Commentator, ever since I became acquainted with him,
I have been accustomed to assign to him the highest rank, and to receive his
expositions with the deepest respect. My labors on this and on a former
occasion
f5aled me to examine his opinions more
closely than before, and have raised him still more highly in my estimation.
There are some points on which I feel assured that he mistook the meaning of
Scripture; but almost all of them had been little investigated in his day, and
do not appear to have been subjected to his usual severity of judgment. Many
will wonder that he should contend so earnestly for the identity of John’s
baptism with Christ’s baptism, instead of representing them to be two
distinct ordinances, instituted for separate purposes, and placed under totally
different regulations: but on this question the followers of Christ may agree to
differ. It will excite more general surprise to find the great Reformer
maintaining the right of the civil magistrate to punish heretics, and even to
inflict on them the last sentence of the law. Men far inferior to him in
learning and ability have avoided mistakes from which his powerful and
enlightened mind was not exempted. They ought to regard with admiration and
gratitude the conduct of a gracious Providence, which preserved his creed so
remarkably free from Romish errors, and enabled him to approach so closely to
the mind of the Holy Spirit.
A may be expected to resemble other works which bear
the same title. Our Author’s delight in brevity, and his extreme aversion
to repeat what he had said before, would aid the influence of other reasons for
adopting this plan, which are stated by himself towards the conclusion of The
Argument. To meet one obvious disadvantage of this arrangement, a Table of
the passages expounded, which may enable the reader easily to discover where the
exposition is to be found, becomes necessary. Such a Table, together with a list
of the passages taken from other books of Scripture which are quoted or
illustrated in this work, and a copious Index to the subjects of which it
treats, will be given in the Third volume.
The old translator of the Harmony, Eusebius Paget,
deserves to be honored by the admirers of Calvin. It was indeed to be expected
that, after the lapse of nearly three centuries, his version would be found
unsuitable to modern taste. But it is highly creditable to his scholarship, and
to his scrupulous fidelity to the original, for which his well known integrity,
and his warm attachment to the writings of the Reformer, were a sufficient
guarantee. His name has come down to us in connection with sermons and other
works, which appear to have been much esteemed, but are now little known.
“The History of the Bible, briefly collected, by way of Question and
Answer,” was one of his productions, and was printed at the end of
several of the old editions of the Bible.
This volume is adorned by a well-authenticated
likeness of the Reformer.
f6aMany will be surprised to trace the lines
of extreme old age in the countenance of one who died at the age of fifty-five.
But all his biographers agree in stating that, ere he had concluded his fortieth
year, the white locks, shrivelled features, and bent shoulders, bespoke Calvin
to be already an old man;
f7aand that long before other fifteen years
had run their course, he seemed as if threescore years and ten, or rather
fourscore years, had passed over him, and brought their usual attendants
of labor and sorrow,
(<199010>Psalm
90:10.) His friends observed with grief the forerunners of an event which, when
it arrived, they could not but mourn as the premature close of a life so highly
valued.
The quaint title-pages of two editions of the French
version, together with the “Epistle Dedicatory” of Eusebius Paget,
and a fac-simile of his title-page, immediately follow this
Preface.
It may be proper to state, in conclusion, that,
throughout this work, Calvin’s own version of THE THREE EVANGELISTS is
adopted, as nearly as the difference of the languages would allow, in preference
to our Authorized Version, which would not have rendered equal assistance to the
reader in understanding the expositions. Yet the singular coincidence between
the two Versions, interrupted chiefly by verbal differences which do not affect
the sense, lends countenance to the suggestion of an esteemed friend and
fellow-laborer, that King James’s Translators have been more deeply
indebted to the labors of Calvin than is generally believed.
W.
P.
AUCHTERARDER,
4th
January, 1845.
THE EPISTLE
DEDICATORY
TO THE OLD
TRANSLATION
TO THE RIGHT
HONORABLE
FRANCIS, EARL
OF BEDFORD,
OF THE NOBLE ORDER OF THE GARTER,
KNIGHT,
ONE OF THE LORDS OF HER MAJESTY’S
MOST HON. PRIVY COUNCIL;
GRACE AND PEACE FROM
GOD, WITH THE INCREASE OF THAT TRUE
HONOR WHICH
IS FROM GOD, AND LASTETH FOR EVER.
[Prefixed to the Original English Translation,
London, 1584 and 1610.]
THE choice (Right Honourable) which Luke the
Evangelist made in dedicating this History of the Gospel, which he wrote, to
that noble man Theophilus, and which that man of worthy memory, M. John Calvin,
took in dedicating these his labors to the Lords of Frankfort, driveth me to
dedicate this my small labor of translating this book into the English tongue.
And though it is but little that I have done, in comparison of the labors of the
other two, and not worth the offering to men of great estate; yet, lest that I
should seem singular in dissenting from these two singular instruments in the
Church of God, and that in one and the selfsame book I have presumed to
make bold of your Lordship’s name, hoping that your Honor will not mislike
to have it written in the forehead of this book with noble Theophilus and the
Lords of Frankfort; specially, sith that I do it in testimony of my dutiful love
to you, for the manifold grace of God in you, and benefits which I have received
from you. Men do commonly, in their Epistles, write either in the commendation
of the work, or in the praise of their patron, or in discharging of themselves
of the discredit which their enemies would lay upon them. But I crave pardon of
your Honor, if, in studying to be short, I omit these things.
For, first, the very name of THE GOSPEL OF JESUS
CHRIST and then the names of MATTHEW, MARK, and LUKE, the Evangelists, and of M.
CALVIN, the gatherer of The Harmony and the writer of The Commentary, do yield
more credit and commendation to the matter than all that I can say of it, all
the days of my life. Only this I say of M. CALVIN’S labors here, that in
my simple judgment it is one of the profitablest works for the Church that ever
he did write.
Next, for your praises, as you like not to hear them,
so I will not offend you in setting them down, nor give others occasion to
condemn me of flattery. They which have best known you say, that you began a
good course in your youth; that you witnessed a good confession in the late time
of persecution; that your constancy hath been testified by your troubles at home
and travels in foreign countries: You have continued your profession in the
midst of your dignity, lordships, and living, left by your parents, and in the
seat of government wherein our sovereign and most gracious Queen hath placed
you; not falling asleep, in security, in this so peaceable a
time.
My Lord, continue to the end, so shall you be safe. I
speak not this as if it were your own strength that hath holden you up all this
while; but meditate sometimes, I pray you, upon the seventy-first Psalm; and
pray that Lord, as David did, who kept you in your youth, that He will keep you
in your old age, now that your hair is hoar and hairs grey. And I beseech the
mighty Lord to thrust them forward which are drawn back by their youthly
affections, and to raise up them that fell away for fear of troubles, and to
waken those which in this quiet and calm time do sleep in security, or wax
wanton with the wealth of the world; that we may meet the Lord with true
humility and earnest repentance, to see if He will be intreated to continue His
mercies towards us; lest he turn his correcting rod, which he hath so oft shaken
over us, into a devouting sword to consume us.
Of myself I will say nothing. The mouths of the
wicked cannot be stopped. Their false tongues, I hope, shall teach me to walk
warily; and I have learned, I thank my God, to pass through good report and
through evil, and to commit myself and my cause to Him that judgeth
right.
The Lord of lords preserve your Honour in safety, and
multiply all spiritual blessings upon you and yours. From Kiltehampton, in
Cornwall, this 28th of, January, 1584.
The Lord’s most unworthy Minister,
lame
EUSEBIUS PAGET
THE
AUTHOR’S
EPISTLE DEDICATORY
TO
THE VERY NOBLE AND ILLUSTRIOUS
LORDS,
THE
BURGOMASTERS AND COUNCIL
OFTHE NOBLE CITY OF
FRANKFORT,
JOHN
CALVIN
IF virtuous examples were ever necessary to be held
out for imitation, in order to stimulate lazy, sluggish, or inactive persons,
the sloth, and—what is more—the indifference of this very corrupt
age makes it necessary that the greater part of men, who do not of their own
accord advance, but rather fall back, should at least be compelled by shame to
discharge their duty. All, indeed, are seen to be influenced, both in public and
in private, by a disgraceful emulation. There is not a king who does not labor
to show that he is equal to his neighbors in the address, or perseverance, or
energy, or courage, necessary for extending, by every possible method, the
bounds of his dominion. There is not a state or commonwealth that yields the
preference to others for cunning and all the arts of deception, nor a single
individual among the ranks of the ambitious who will acknowledge his inferiority
to others in wicked contrivances. In short, we would almost say that they had
entered into a silent but mutual conspiracy to challenge each other to a contest
of vices, and every man who carries wickedness to an extreme easily ruins a vast
multitude by his example; so that, amidst the general prevalence of crimes, very
few persons are to be found who exhibit a pattern of
uprightness.
For these reasons I reckon it to be the more
advantageous that those uncommon excellencies, by which eminent persons are
distinguished, should receive the commendations which they deserve, and should
be raised to an elevated situation so as to be seen at a great distance, that
the desire of imitating them may be awakened in many breasts. And this I
acknowledge, most honorable Lords, to be the principal reason why I am desirous
that this work of mine should be given to the world under the sanction of your
name. For though my undertaking will be regarded by me as having obtained a
distinguished reward, if your readiness to do good shall derive from it any
increase, yet I have had more particularly in my eye the other object which has
been mentioned, namely, that others may equal your progress, or at least may
follow the same course.
I have no intention, however, to frame a catalogue of
all the excellencies by which you are distinguished, but shall satisfy myself
for the present with mentioning, in terms of commendation, one excellence which
has bound to you myself and a great number of the servants of Christ by what may
be called a more sacred tie. It was a great matter that, more than five years
ago, when all were seized with dreadful alarm, when a fearful devastation of the
churches of Germany, and almost the destruction of the Gospel, was threatened by
the calamity which had occurred, you, on whom the first shower of darts fell,
stood firm in an open profession of the faith which was at that time extremely
odious, and steadily maintained the pure doctrine of godliness which you had
embraced, so as to make it evident that, amidst the greatest anxieties and
dangers, there is nothing which you value more highly than to fight under the
banner of Christ. But it is still more remarkable, and more worthy of being put
on record, that you not only maintain the pure worship of God among yourselves,
and faithfully endeavor to keep your fellow-citizens within the fold of Christ,
but that you collect as torn members those fragments of a dispersed church which
had been thrown out in other countries.
In the present melancholy state of affairs, it has
given me no small consolation to learn that devout worshippers of God, who had
come to you as exiles from England and from other places, were received by you
with warm hospitality; and that you not only opened your gates to them in their
wretched exile, but rendered deserved honor to the Son of God, by making his
Gospel to be distinctly heard in your city in foreign languages. A similar
instance of distinguished kindness was recently showed to the unhappy natives of
Locarno by the Council of Zurich, who not only threw open their city to
them, (when they were not permitted to worship Christ at home according to their
consciences) but even assigned to them a church for holding their religious
assemblies, and were not prevented by a diversity of language from desiring to
hear Christ talk Italian in their own city.
To return to yourselves: as soon as I heard that you
had had the kindness to allow persons who speak our language to found a church
amongst you, I considered that you had laid me under private obligations, and
resolved to take this opportunity of testifying my gratitude. For while there is
good reason for deploring the state of our nation to be such, that the
sacrilegious tyranny of Popery has made a residence in our own country to be
little else than a banishment from the kingdom of God, so, on the other hand, it
is a distinguished favor to have a habitation granted to us on a foreign soil,
where the lawful worship of God may be observed. This truly sacred
hospitality—which was rendered not to men, but rather to Christ
himself—will, I trust, add to your already prosperous condition fresh acts
of the divine kindness, and secure them to you in uninterrupted
succession.
For my own part at least, as I have just now
declared, such were my inducements to dedicate to you this work of mine. It is a
Harmony arranged out of Three Evangelists, and has been prepared by me
with the greatest fidelity and diligence. What toil I have bestowed on it would
serve no purpose to detail; and how far I have succeeded must be left to others
to decide. The readers to whom I refer are those honest, learned, and
well-disposed persons, whose desire of making progress is not retarded by a
barbarous shame at receiving instruction, and who feel an interest in the public
advantage. I do not trouble myself with mean and wicked scoundrels; and such I
call not only the hooded monks, who, in defending the tyranny of the Pope, carry
on open war with us, but those useless
dronesf1b
who, mixing with us, seize on every pretense for concealing their ignorance, and
would wish to have the light of doctrine wholly extinguished. Let them
impudently bark at me as much as they please: my reply will be always ready.
Neither divine nor human obligation subjects me to the judgment of those who
deserve the lash for their most disgraceful ignorance, as much as they deserve
the whip for their obstinate and hardened malice and insolence.
I may be allowed at least to say, without the
imputation of boasting, that I have faithfully endeavored to be of service to
the Church of God. Two years ago, John was published along with my
Commentary, which, I trust, was not without advantage. And thus like one of the
heralds,
f2bI have endeavored, to the utmost extent
that my ability allowed, to do honor to Christ riding magnificently in his royal
chariot drawn by four horses; and feel assured that candid readers, who have
derived advantage from my labors, will not be ashamed to acknowledge that the
success has, in some measure, corresponded to my wish. The evangelical history,
related by four witnesses divinely appointed, is justly compared by me to a
chariot drawn by four horses: for by this appropriate and just harmony God
appears to have expressly prepared for his Son a triumphal chariot, from which
he may make a magnificent display to the whole body of believers, and in which,
with rapid progress, he may review the world. Augustine, too, makes an apt
comparison of the Four Evangelists to trumpets, the sound of which fills every
region of the world, so that the Church, gathered from the East, and West, and
South, and North, flows into a holy unity of faith. So much the more intolerable
is the curiosity of those who, not satisfied with the heavenly heralds, obtrude
upon us, under the name of a Gospel, disgusting tales, which serve no other
purpose than to pollute the purity of faith, and to expose the name of Christ to
the sneers and ridicule of the ungodly.
With regard to yourselves, most noble Lords, as you
detest every kind of leaven, by which the native purity of the Gospel is
corrupted, and show that you have nothing more at heart than to defend and
maintain the pure doctrine, as it was delivered by Christ, I feel assured that
this production, which opens up the treasure of the Gospel, will receive your
warmest approbation, and trust that my dedication of it to you will be accepted
as a mark of my regard. Farewell, most illustrious Lords. May Christ always
direct you by his Spirit, support you by his power, defend you by his
protection, and enrich your city and commonwealth with all abundance of
blessings.
GENEVA, 1st August,
M.D.LV.
THE ARGUMENT
ON THE GOSPEL
OF JESUS CHRIST
ACCORDING TO MATTHEW, MARK, AND
LUKE
IN order to read with profit the Evangelical history,
it is of great importance to understand the meaning of the word
Gospel.
f1cWe shall thus be enabled to ascertain what
design those heavenly witnesses had in writing, and to what object the events
related by them must be referred. That their histories did not receive this name
from others, but were so denominated by the Authors, is evident from Mark, who
expressly says (1:1) that he relates the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus
Christ. There is one passage in the writings of Paul, from which above all
others a clear and certain definition of the word Gospel may be obtained,
where he tells us that it . .
was promised by God in
the Scriptures, through the prophets, concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord,
who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the
Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of sanctification, by the
resurrection from the dead,
(<450102>Romans
1:2-4.)
First, this passage shows that the Gospel is a
testimony of the revealed salvation, which had been formerly promised to the
Fathers in an uninterrupted succession of ages. It points out, at the same time,
a distinction between the promises which kept the hope of the people in
suspense, and this joyful message, by which God declares that he has
accomplished those things which he had formerly required them to
expect.
f2cIn the same manner he states a little
afterwards, that in the Gospel
the righteousness of God
is openly manifested, which was testified by the Law and the Prophets,
(<450321>Romans
3:21.)
The same apostle calls it, in another passage, an
Embassy by which the reconciliation of the world to God, once
accomplished by the death of Christ, is daily offered to men,
(<470520>2
Corinthians 5:20.)
Secondly, Paul means not only that Christ is the
pledge of all the blessings that God has ever promised, but that we have in him
a full and complete exhibition of them; as he elsewhere declares that all the
promises of God in him are yea, and in him amen,
(<470120>2
Corinthians 1:20.) And, indeed, the freely bestowed adoption, by which we are
made sons of God, as it proceeds from the good pleasure which the Father had
from eternity, has been revealed to us in this respect, that Christ (who alone
is the Son of God by nature) has clothed himself with our flesh, and made us his
brethren. That satisfaction by which sins are blotted out, so that we are no
longer under the curse and the sentence of, death, is to be found nowhere else
than in the sacrifice of his death. Righteousness, and salvation, and perfect
happiness, are founded on his resurrection.
The Gospel, therefore, is a public exhibition
of the Son of God manifested in the flesh, (1 Timothy 3:16,) to deliver a
ruined world, and to restore men from death to life. It is justly called a
good and joyful message, for it contains perfect happiness. Its
object is to commence the reign of God, and by means of our deliverance from the
corruption of the flesh, and of our renewal by the Spirit, to conduct us to the
heavenly glory. For this reason it is often called the kingdom of heaven,
and the restoration to a blessed life, which is brought to us by Christ, is
sometimes called the kingdom of God: as when Mark says that Joseph
waited for the kingdom of God,
(<411543>Mark
15:43,) he undoubtedly refers to the coming of the Messiah.
Hence it is evident that the word Gospel
applies properly to the New Testament, and that those writers are chargeable
with a want of precision,
f3cwho say that it was common to all ages,
and who suppose that the Prophets, equally with the Apostles, were ministers of
the Gospel. Widely different is the account which Christ gives us, when he says,
that
the law and the prophets
were TILL John, and that since that time the kingdom of God began to be
preached,
(<421616>Luke
16:16.)
Mark, too, as we mentioned a little ago, declares
that the preaching of John was the beginning of the Gospel,
(<430101>John
1:1.) Again, the four histories, which relate how Christ discharged the office
of Mediator, have with great propriety received this designation. As the birth,
death, and resurrection of Christ contain the whole of our salvation, and are
therefore the peculiar subject of the Gospel, the name of Evangelists
is justly and suitably applied to those who place before our eyes Christ who
has been sent by the Father, that our faith may acknowledge him to be the Author
of a blessed life.
The power and results of his coming are still more
fully expressed in other books of the New Testament. And even in this respect
John differs widely from the other three Evangelists: for he is almost wholly
occupied in explaining the power of Christ, and the advantages which we derive
from him; while they insist more fully on one point, that our Christ is that Son
of God who had been promised to be the Redeemer of the world. They interweave,
no doubt, the doctrine which relates to the office of Christ, and inform us what
is the nature of his grace, and for what purpose he has been given to us; but
they are principally employed, as I have said, in showing that in the person of
Jesus Christ has been fulfilled what God had promised from the
beginning.
f4cThey had no intention or design to abolish
by their writings the law and the prophets; as some fanatics dream that
the Old Testament is superfluous, now that the truth of heavenly wisdom has been
revealed to us by Christ and his Apostles. On the contrary, they point with the
finger to Christ, and admonish us to seek from him whatever is ascribed to him
by the law and the prophets. The full profit and advantage, therefore, to
be derived from the reading of the Gospel will only be obtained when we learn to
connect it with the ancient promises.
With regard to the three writers of the Evangelical
history, whom I undertake to expound, Matthew is sufficiently known.
Mark is generally supposed to have been the private friend and disciple
of Peter. It is even believed that he wrote the Gospel, as it was dictated to
him by Peter, and thus merely performed the office of an amanuensis or
clerk.
f5cBut on this subject we need not give
ourselves much trouble, for it is of little importance to us, provided only we
believe that he is a properly qualified and divinely appointed witness, who
committed nothing to writing, but as the Holy Spirit directed him and guided his
pen. There is no ground whatever for the statement of Jerome, that his Gospel is
an abridgment of the Gospel by Matthew. He does not everywhere adhere to the
order which Matthew observed, and from the very commencement handles the
subjects in a different manner. Some things, too, are related by him which the
other had omitted, and his narrative of the same event is sometimes more
detailed. It is more probable, in my opinion—and the nature of the case
warrants the conjecture—that he had not seen Matthew’s book when he
wrote his own; so far is he from having expressly intended to make an
abridgment.
I have the same observation to make respecting
Luke: for we will not say that the diversity which we perceive in the
three Evangelists was the object of express arrangement, but as they intended to
give an honest narrative of what they knew to be certain and undoubted, each
followed that method which he reckoned best. Now as this did not happen by
chance, but by the direction of Divine Providence, so under this diversity in
the manner of writing the Holy Spirit suggested to them an astonishing harmony,
which would almost be sufficient of itself to secure credit to them, if there
were not other and stronger evidences to support their
authority.
Luke asserts plainly enough that he is the person who
attended Paul. But it is a childish statement which Eusebius makes, that Paul is
the Author of the Gospel which bears the name of Luke, because in one passage he
mentions his
Gospel,
f6c(<550208>2
Timothy 2:8.) As if what follows did not make it clear that Paul is speaking of
his whole preaching, and not of a single book: for he adds,
for which I suffer trouble, even
to bonds,
(<550209>2
Timothy 2:9.) Now, it is certain that he was not held
guilty f7c
of having written a book, but of having administered and preached with the
living voice the doctrine of Christ. Eusebius, whose industry was great,
discovers here a singular want of judgment in collecting without discrimination
such gross absurdities. On this head I have thought it necessary to warn my
readers, that they may not be shocked at fooleries of the same description which
occur in every part of his history.
Of that method of interpretation which I have chosen
to adopt, and which it may be many persons, at first sight, will not approve, it
will be proper to give some account for the satisfaction of pious and candid
readers. First, it is beyond all dispute, that it is impossible to expound, in a
proper and successful manner, any one of the Evangelists, without comparing him
with the other two; and, accordingly, faithful and learned commentators spend a
very great portion of their labor on reconciling the narratives of the three
Evangelists. But as it frequently happens that persons of ordinary abilities
find the comparison to be no easy matter, when it is necessary to pass at every
turn from the one to the other, I thought that it might prove to be a seasonable
and useful abridgment of their labor, if I were to arrange the three histories
in one unbroken chain, or in a single picture, in which the reader may perceive
at a glance the resemblance or diversity that exists. In this way I shall leave
out nothing that has been written by any of the three Evangelists; and whatever
may be found in more than one of them will be collected into one
place.
Whether or not I have succeeded to my expectation,
the reader must decide by his own experience. So far from claiming the praise of
having brought out something new, I readily acknowledge, as becomes an honest
man, that I have adopted this method in imitation of others. Bucer, a man
of revered memory, and an eminent teacher of the Church of God, who above all
others appears to me to have labored successfully in this field, has been
especially my model. As he availed himself of the labors of the ancients who had
traveled this road before him, so my toils have been not a little alleviated by
his industry and application. Where I use the liberty of differing from him,
(which I have freely done, whenever it was necessary,) Bucer himself, if he were
still an inhabitant of the earth, would not be displeased.
COMMENTARY
ON A
HARMONY OF THE
EVANGELISTS
LUKE
1:1-4
|
LUKE
1:1-4
|
|
1. Forasmuch as many have
undertaken to compose a narrative of those things which are most surely believed
among us, 2. Even as they delivered them unto us, who from
the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word;
3. It seemed good to me also, having carefully examined all
things from the beginning, to write to thee in detail, most excellent
Theophilus, 4. That thou mayest acknowledge the certainty of
those things whereof thou hast been instructed.
|
LUKE is the only Evangelist who makes a preface
to his Gospel, for the purpose of explaining briefly the motive which induced
him to write. By addressing a single individual he may appear to have acted
foolishly, instead of sounding the trumpet aloud, as was his duty, and inviting
all men to believe. It appears, therefore, to be unsuitable that the doctrine
which does not peculiarly belong to one person or to another, but is common to
all, should be privately sent to his friend Theophilus. Hence some have been led
to think that Theophilus is an appellative noun, and is applied to all
godly persons on account of their love of God; but the epithet which is
joined to it is inconsistent with that opinion. Nor is there any reason for
dreading the absurdity which drove them to adopt such an expedient. For it is
not less true that Paul’s doctrine belongs to all, though some of
his Epistles were addressed to certain cities, and others to certain men. Nay,
we must acknowledge, if we take into account the state of those times, that Luke
adopted a conscientious and prudent course. There were tyrants on every hand
who, by terror and alarm, were prepared to obstruct the progress of sound
doctrine. This gave occasion to Satan and his ministers for spreading abroad the
clouds of error, by which the pure light would be obscured. Now, as the great
body of men cared little about maintaining the purity of the Gospel, and few
considered attentively the inventions of Satan or the amount of danger that
lurked under such disguises, every one who excelled others by uncommon faith, or
by extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, was the more strongly bound to do his
utmost, by care and industry, for preserving the doctrine of godliness pure and
uncontaminated from every corruption. Such persons were chosen by God to be the
sacred keepers of the law, by whom the heavenly doctrine committed to them
should be honestly handed down to posterity. With this view therefore, Luke
dedicates his Gospel to Theophilus, that he might undertake the faithful
preservation of it; and the same duty Paul enjoins and recommends to Timothy,
(<550114>2
Timothy 1:14; 3:14.)
1.
Forasmuch as
many. He assigns a reason for writing which,
one would think, ought rather to have dissuaded him from writing. To compose a
history, which had already employed many authors, was unnecessary labor, at
least if they had faithfully discharged their duty. But no accusation of
imposture, or carelessness, or any other fault, is in the slightest degree
insinuated. It looks, therefore, as if he were expressing a resolution to do
what had been already done. I reply, though he deals gently with those who had
written before him, he does not altogether approve of their labors. He does not
expressly say that they had written on matters with which they were imperfectly
acquainted, but by laying claim to certainty as to the facts, he modestly denies
their title to full and unshaken confidence. It may be objected that, if they
made false statements, they ought rather to have been severely censured. I reply
again, they may not have been deeply in fault; they may have erred more from
want of consideration than from malice; and, consequently, there would be no
necessity for greater fierceness of attack. And certainly there is reason to
believe that these were little more than historical sketches which, though
comparatively harmless at the time, would afterwards, if they had not been
promptly counteracted, have done serious injury to the faith. But it is worthy
of remark that, in applying this remedy through Luke to unnecessary writings,
God had a wonderful design in view of obtaining, by universal consent, the
rejection of others, and thus securing undivided credit to those which reflect
brightly his adorable majesty. There is the less excuse for those silly people,
by whom disgusting stories, under the name of Nicodemus, or some other person,
are, at the present day, palmed upon the world.
Are most surely believed among
us. The participle
peplhroforhme>na,
which Luke employs, denotes things fully ascertained, and which do not admit of
doubt. The old translator has repeatedly fallen into mistakes about this word,
and through that ignorance has given us a corrupted sense of some very beautiful
passages. One of these occurs in the writings of Paul, where he enjoins every
man to be fully persuaded in his own mind,
(<451405>Romans
14:5,) that conscience may not hesitate and waver, tossed to and fro
(<490414>Ephesians
4:14) by doubtful opinions. Hence, too, is derived the word
plhrofori>a,
which he erroneously renders
fullness,
while it denotes that strong conviction springing from faith, in which godly
minds safely rest. There is still, as I have said, an implied contrast; for, by
claiming for himself the authority of a faithful witness, he destroys the credit
of others who give contrary statements.
Among
us f1
has the same meaning as with
us.
f2 He appears to make faith rest on a
weak foundation, its relation to men, while it ought to rest on the Word of God
only; and certainly the full
assurance
(plhrofori>a)
of faith is ascribed to the sealing of the Spirit,
(<520105>1
Thessalonians 1:5;
<581022>Hebrews
10:22.) I reply, if the Word of God does not hold the first rank, faith will not
be satisfied with any human testimonies, but, where the inward confirmation of
the Spirit has already taken place, it allows them some weight in the historical
knowledge of facts. By historical knowledge I mean that knowledge which we
obtain respecting events, either by our own observation or by the statement of
others. For, with respect to the visible works of God, it is equally proper to
listen to eye-witnesses
as to rely on experience. Besides, those
whom Luke follows were not private authors, but were also
ministers of the
Word. By this commendation he exalts
them above the rank of human authority; for he intimates that the persons from
whom he received his information had been divinely authorized to preach the
Gospel. Hence, too, that security which he shortly afterwards mentions, and
which, if it does not rest upon God, may soon be disturbed. There is great
weight in his denominating those from whom he received his Gospel
ministers of the
Word; for on that ground believers
conclude that the witnesses are beyond all exception, as the Lawyers express it,
and cannot lawfully be set aside.
Erasmus, who has borrowed from
Virgil f3
a phrase used in his version, did not sufficiently consider the estimation
and weight due to a Divine calling. Luke does not talk in a profane style, but
enjoins us in the person of his friend Theophilus to keep in view the command of
Christ, and to hear with reverence the Son of God speaking through his Apostles.
It is a great matter that he affirms them to have been
eye-witneses,
but, by calling them
ministers,
he takes them out of the common order of men, that our faith may have its
support in heaven and not in earth. In short, Luke’s meaning is this:
“that, since thou now hast those things committed faithfully to writing
which thou hadst formerly learned by oral statements, thou mayest place a
stronger reliance on the received doctrine.” It is thus evident that God
has employed every method to prevent our faith from being suspended on the
doubtful and shifting opinions of men. There is the less room for excusing the
ingratitude of the world, which, as if it openly preferred the uncertainty
arising out of vague and unfounded reports, turns from so great a Divine favor
with loathing. But let us attend to the remarkable distinction which our Lord
has laid down, that foolish credulity may not insinuate itself under the name of
faith. Meanwhile, let us allow the world to be allured, as it deserves, by the
deceitful baits of foolish curiosity, and even to surrender itself willingly to
the delusions of Satan.
3.
Having carefully examined all
things. The old translator has it,
having followed out all
things;
f4 and the Greek verb
parakolouqei~n
is taken metaphorically from those who tread in the footsteps of others,
that nothing may escape them. So that Luke intended to express his close and
laborious investigation, just as Demosthenes employs the same word, when, in
examining an embassy against which he brings an accusation, he boasts of his
diligence to have been such, that he perceived every thing that had been done as
well as if he had been a spectator.
LUKE 1:5-13
|
LUKE
1:5-13
|
|
5. In the days of Herod, king of
Judea, there was a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia; and
his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all
the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. 7. And
they had no child, because Elisabeth was barren, and they were now both at an
advanced age. 8. And it happened, while he was discharging
the priest's office in the order of his course before God,
9. According to the custom of the priest's office, it fell to
him by lot to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord.
10. And the whole multitude of the people were praying
without at the time of incense. 11. And an angel of the Lord
appeared to him, standing at the right hand of the altar on which the incense
was burning. 12. And Zacharias was troubled when he saw him,
and fear fell upon him. 13. But the angel said to him, Fear
not, Zacharias, for thy prayer is heard: and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee
a son, and thou shalt call his name John.
|
Luke very properly begins his Gospel with John
the Baptist, just as a person who was going to speak about the daylight would
commence with the dawn. For, like the dawn, he went before the Sun of
Righteousness, which was shortly to arise. Others also mention him, but they
bring him forward as already discharging his office. Luke secures our respect
for him, while he is yet unborn, by announcing the miracles of divine power
which took place at the earliest period of his existence, and by showing that he
had a commission from heaven to be a prophet, ere it was possible for men to
know what would be his character. His object was that John might afterwards be
heard with more profound veneration, when he should come forth invested with a
public office to exhibit the glory of Christ.
5.
In the days of
Herod. This was the son of Antipater,
whom his father elevated to the throne, and labored with such assiduity and toil
to advance, that he was afterwards surnamed Herod
the
Great. Some think that he is here
mentioned by Luke, because he was their first foreign king; and that this was a
suitable time for their deliverance, because the scepter had passed into a
different nation. But they who speak in this manner do not correctly understand
Jacob’s prophecy,
(<014910>Genesis
49:10,) in which the advent of the Messiah is promised not merely after the
royal authority had been taken from the Jews, but after it had been removed from
the tribe of Judah. The holy patriarch did not even intimate that the tribe of
Judah would be stripped of its supremacy, but that the government of the people
would steadily remain in it until Christ, in whose person its permanency would
at length be secured. When the Maccabees flourished, the tribe of Judah was
reduced nearly to a private rank; and shortly afterwards, John, the latest
leader of that race, was slain. But even at that time, its power was not
completely annihilated; for there still remained the Sanhedrim, or Council
selected out of the family and descendants of David, which possessed great
authority, and lasted till the time of Herod, who, by a shocking slaughter of
the judges, revenged the punishment formerly inflicted on himself, when he was
condemned for murder, and forced to undergo voluntary exile, in order to escape
capital punishment.
It was not, therefore, because he was of foreign
extraction, that the reign of Herod broke the scepter of the tribe of Judah,
(<014910>Genesis
49:10;) but because whatever relics of superior rank still lingered in that
tribe were entirely carried off by his robbery. That its royal dignity had
crumbled down long before, and that by slow degrees its supremacy had nearly
given way, does not imply such a discontinuance as to be at variance with
Jacob’s prophecy. For God had promised two things seemingly opposite; that
the throne of
David would be eternal,
(<198929>Psalm
89:29, 36,) and that, after it had been destroyed, he would raise up its ruins,
(<300911>Amos
9:11;) that the sway of his kingly power would be eternal, and yet that there
should come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse,
(<231101>Isaiah
11:1.) Both must be fulfilled. That supremacy, therefore, which God had bestowed
on the tribe of Judah, was suffered by him to be broken down for a time, that
the attention of the people might be more strongly directed to the expectation
of Christ’s reign. But when the destruction of the Sanhedrim appeared to
have cut off the hope of believers, suddenly the Lord shone forth. Now, it
belongs to the arrangement of history to mark the date of the transaction; but
for no light reason did the word
king
mark, at the same time, the wretchedness of that period, in order to remind
the Jews, that their eyes ought now to be turned to the Messiah, if they would
sincerely keep the covenant of God.
Zacharias, of the course of
Abia. We learn from sacred history,
(<132403>1
Chronicles 24:3, 31,) that the families of the priests were arranged by David in
certain classes. In this matter David attempted nothing contrary to what the law
enjoined. God had bestowed the priesthood on Aaron and his sons,
(<022801>Exodus
28:1.) The other Levites were set apart to inferior offices,
(<040309>Numbers
3:9.) David made no change in this respect; but his object was, partly to secure
that nothing should be done in tumult and disorder, partly to oppose ambition,
and at the same time to provide that it should not be in the power of a few
persons, by taking the whole service into their own hands, to leave the greater
number unemployed at home. Now in that arrangement,
Abijah,
son of Eleazar, held the eighth rank,
(<132410>1
Chronicles 24:10.) Zacharias, therefore, belonged to the priestly family, and to
the posterity of Eleazar who had succeeded his father in the high priest’s
office,
(<042028>Numbers
20:28.) In what manner Elisabeth, who was of the daughters of Aaron, could be
Mary’s
cousin,
(v. 36,) I will explain in the proper place. It is certainly by way of
respect that Luke mentions the genealogy of Elisabeth; for Zacharias was
permitted by the law to take to wife a daughter of any private Levite. From the
equal marriage, therefore, it is evident that he was a man respected among his
own rank.
6.
And they were both righteous
before God. He awards to them a noble
testimony, not only that among men they spent holy and upright lives, but also
that they were righteous before
God. This
righteousness
Luke defines briefly by saying that they
walked in all the commandments of
God. Both ought to be carefully
observed; for, although praise is bestowed on Zacharias and Elisabeth for the
purpose of showing us that the lamp, whose light went before the Son of God, was
taken not from an obscure house, but from an illustrious sanctuary, yet their
example exhibits to us, at the same time, the rule of a devout and righteous
life. In ordering our life,
(<193723>Psalm
37:23,) therefore, our first study ought to be to approve ourselves to God; and
we know that what he chiefly requires is a sincere heart and a pure conscience.
Whoever neglects uprightness of heart, and regulates his outward life only by
obedience to the law, neglects this order. For it ought to be remembered that
the heart, and not the outward mask of works, is chiefly regarded by God, to
whom we are commanded to look. Obedience occupies the second rank; that is, no
man must frame for himself, at his own pleasure, a new form of righteousness
unsupported by the Word of God, but we must allow ourselves to be governed by
divine authority. Nor ought we to neglect this definition, that they are
righteous
who regulate their life by the
commandments
of the law; which intimates that, to the eye of God, all acts of worship are
counterfeit, and the course of human life false and unsettled, so far as they
depart from his law.
Commandments
and
ordinances
differ thus. The latter term relates strictly to exercises of piety and of
divine worship; the latter is more general, and extends both to the worship of
God and to the duties of charity. For the Hebrew word
µyqh,
which signifies statutes or decrees, is rendered by the Greek translator
dikaiw>mata,
ordinances;
and in Scripture
µyqh
usually denotes those services which the people were accustomed to perform in
the worship of God and in the profession of their faith. Now, though hypocrites,
in that respect, are very careful and exact, they do not at all resemble
Zacharias and Elisabeth. For the sincere worshippers of God, such as these two
were, do not lay hold on naked and empty ceremonies, but, eagerly bent on the
truth, they observe them in a spiritual manner. Unholy and hypocritical persons,
though they bestow assiduous toil on outward ceremonies, are yet far from
observing them as they are enjoined by the Lord, and, consequently, do but lose
their labor. In short, under these two words Luke embraces the whole
law.
But if, in keeping the law, Zacharias and Elisabeth
were blameless, they had no need of the grace of Christ; for a full observance
of the law brings life, and, where there is no transgression of it, there is no
remaining guilt. I reply, those magnificent commendations, which are bestowed on
the servants of God, must be taken with some exception. For we ought to consider
in what manner God deals with them. It is according to the covenant which he has
made with them, the first clause of which is a free reconciliation and daily
pardon, by which he forgives their sins. They are accounted
righteous
and
blameless,
because their whole life testifies that they are devoted to righteousness,
that the fear of God dwells in them, so long as they give a holy example. But as
their pious endeavors fall very far short of perfection, they cannot please God
without obtaining pardon. The righteousness which is commended in them depends
on the gracious forbearance of God, who does not reckon to them their remaining
unrighteousness. In this manner we must explain whatever expressions are applied
in Scripture to the righteousness of men, so as not to overturn the forgiveness
of sins, on which it rests as a house does on its foundation. Those who explain
it to mean that Zacharias and Elisabeth were righteous by faith, simply because
they freely obtained the favor of God through the Mediator, torture and misapply
the words of Luke. With respect to the subject itself, they state a part of the
truth, but not the whole. I do own that the righteousness which is ascribed to
them ought to be regarded as obtained, not by the merit of works, but by the
grace of Christ; and yet, because the Lord has not imputed to them their sins,
he has been pleased to bestow on their holy, though imperfect life, the
appellation of
righteousness.
The folly of the Papists is easily refuted. With the righteousness of faith
they contrast this righteousness, which is ascribed to Zacharias, which
certainly springs from the former, and, therefore, must be subject, inferior,
and, to use a common expression, subordinate to it, so that there is no
collision between them. The false coloring, too which they give to a single word
is pitiful.
Ordinances,
they tell us, are called
commandments
of the law, and, therefore, they justify us. As if we asserted that true
righteousness is not laid down in the law, or complained that its instruction is
in fault for not justifying us, and not rather that it is weak through our
flesh,
(<450803>Romans
8:3.) In the commandments of God, as we have a hundred times acknowledged, life
is contained,
(<031805>Leviticus
18:5;
<401917>Matthew
19:17;) but this will be of no avail to men, who by nature were altogether
opposed to the law, and, now that they are regenerated by the Spirit of God, are
still very far from observing it in a perfect
manner.
7.
And they had no
child. By an extraordinary purpose of
God it was appointed that John should be born out of the common and ordinary
course of nature. The same thing happened with Isaac,
(<011717>Genesis
17:17;
<012101>Genesis
21:1-3,) in whom God had determined to give an uncommon and remarkable
demonstration of his favor. Elisabeth had been barren in the prime of life, and
now she is in old age, which of itself shuts up the womb. By two hinderances,
therefore, the Lord gives a twofold, surprising exhibition of his power, in
order to testify, by stretching out his hand, as it were, from heaven, that the
Prophet was sent by himself,
(<390301>Malachi
3:1;
<430106>John
1:6.) He is indeed a mortal man, born of earthly parents; but a supernatural
method, so to speak, recommends him strongly as if he had fallen from
heaven.
9.
According to the custom of
the priest’s office. The law
enjoined that incense should be offered twice every day, that is, every morning
and at even,
(<023007>Exodus
30:7, 8.) The order of courses among the priests had been appointed by David, as
we have already explained; and, consequently, what is here stated as to incense
was expressly enjoined by the law of God. The other matters had been arranged by
David,
(<132403>1
Chronicles 24:3,) that each family might have its own turn, though David
ordained nothing which was not prescribed by the law: he only pointed out a plan
by which they might individually perform the service which God had
commanded.
The word
temple
(na<ov)
is here put for the holy
place; which deserves attention, for it
sometimes includes the outer court. Now, Zacharias is spoken of as going into
the temple, which none but priests were permitted to enter. And so Luke says
that the people stood
without,
there being a great distance between them and the altar of incense; for the
altar on which the sacrifices were offered intervened. It ought to be observed
also that Luke says before
God: for whenever the priest entered
into the holy place, he went, as it were, into the presence of God, that he
might be a mediator between him and the people. For it was the will of the Lord
to have this impressed upon his people, that no mortal is allowed to have access
to heaven, without a priest going before; nay that, so long as men live on the
earth, they do not approach the heavenly throne, so as to find favor there, but
in the person of the Mediator. Now, as there were many priests, there were not
two of them permitted to discharge, at the same time, the solemn office of
intercession for the people; but they were so arranged in classes, that only one
entered the Holy Place, and thus there was but one priest at a time. The design
of the incense was to remind believers that the sweet savor of their prayers
does not ascend to heaven except through the sacrifice of the Mediator; and in
what manner those figures apply to us must be learned from the Epistle to the
Hebrews.
12.
Zacharias was
troubled. Though God does not appear to
his servants for the purpose of terrifying them, yet it is advantageous and even
necessary for them to be struck with awe,
(<193308>Psalm
33:8,) that, amidst their agitation, they may learn to give to God the glory due
unto his name,
(<192902>Psalm
29:2.) Nor does Luke relate only that Zacharias was terrified, but adds that
fear fell upon
him; intimating that he was so alarmed
as to give way to terror. The presence of God fills men with alarm, which not
only leads them to reverence, but humbles the pride of the flesh, naturally so
insolent that they never submit themselves to God until they have been overcome
by violence. Hence, too, we infer that it is only when God is absent,—or,
in other words, when they withdraw from his presence,—that they indulge in
pride and self-flattery; for if they had God as a Judge before their eyes, they
would at once and unavoidably fall prostrate. And if at the sight of an angel,
who is but a spark of the Divine light, this happened to Zacharias, on whom the
commendation of
righteousness
is bestowed, what shall become of us miserable creatures, if the majesty of
God shall overwhelm us with its brightness? We are taught by the example of the
holy fathers that those only are impressed with a lively sense of the Divine
presence who shake and tremble at beholding him, and that those are stupid and
insensible who hear his voice without
alarm.
13.
Fear not,
Zacharias. The glory of God, it ought to
be observed, is not so appalling to the saints as to swallow them up entirely
with dread, but only to cast them down from a foolish confidence, that they may
behold him with humility. As soon, therefore, as God has abased the pride of the
flesh in those who believe in him, he stretches out his hand to raise them up.
He acts differently towards the reprobate; for at whatever time they are dragged
before the tribunal of God, they are overwhelmed by absolute despair: and thus
does God justly reward their vain delights, in which they give themselves up to
the intoxicating antonness of sin. We ought, therefore, to accept this
consolation, with which the angel soothes Zacharias, that we have no reason to
fear, when God is gracious to us. For they are greatly mistaken who, in order to
enjoy peace, hide themselves from the face of God, whereas we ought to acquaint
ourselves with him and be at peace,
(<182221>Job
22:21.)
Thy prayer is
heard. Zacharias may seem to have acted
an improper part, and inconsistent with the nature of his office, if, on
entering the Holy Place in the name of all the people, he prayed as a private
man that he might obtain offspring; for, when the priest sustained a public
character, he ought, in forgetfulness as it were of himself, to offer prayers
for the general welfare of the Church. If we say that there was no absurdity in
Zacharias, after performing the chief part of the prayer, devoting the second
part of it to private meditations about himself, the reply will not be without
weight. But it is hardly probable that Zacharias did, at that time, pray to
obtain a son, of which he had despaired on account of his wife’s advanced
age; nor indeed can any precise moment be drawn from the words of the angel. I
interpret it, therefore, simply that his prayer was at length heard, which he
had poured out before God for a long period. That the desire of having children,
if it be not excessive, is consistent with piety and holiness, may be gathered
from Scripture, which assigns to it not the lowest place among the blessings of
God.
Thou shalt call his name
John. The name was given, I think, to
the Baptist in order to heighten the authority of his office.
ˆnhwhy,
(<130315>1
Chronicles 3:15,) for which the Greeks employ
jIwa>nnhv,
signifies in Hebrew the grace of
the Lord. Many suppose that the son of
Zacharias was so called, because he was beloved of God. I rather think that it
was intended to recommend not the grace which God bestowed upon him as a private
individual, but that grace which his mission would bring to all. The force and
weight of the name are increased by its date; for it was before he was born that
God inscribed on him this token of his favor.
LUKE 1:14-17
|
LUKE
1:14-17
|
|
14. And he shall be to thee joy
and exultation, and many shall rejoice on account of his birth.
15. For he shall be great before the Lord, and shall drink
neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even
from his mother's womb. 16. And many of the children of
Israel shall he bring back to the Lord their God. 17. And he
shall go before him with the spirit and power of Elijah, that he may bring back
the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of
the just, that he may make ready a people prepared for the
Lord.
|
14.
He shall be to thee
joy. The angel describes a greater joy
than what Zacharias could derive from the recent birth of a child; for he
informs him that he would have such a son as he had not even ventured to wish.
He even proceeds farther to state that the joy would not be domestic, enjoyed by
the parents alone, or confined within private walls, but shared alike by
strangers, to whom the advantage of his birth should be made known. It is as if
the angel had said that a son would be born not to Zacharias alone, but would be
the Teacher and Prophet of the whole people. The Papists have abused this
passage for the purpose of introducing a profane custom in celebrating the
birth-day of John. I pass over the disorderly scene of a procession accompanied
by dancing and leaping, and licentiousness of every description, strangely
enough employed in observing a day which they pretend to hold sacred, and even
the amusements authorized on that day taken from magical arts and diabolical
tricks, closely resembling the mysteries of the goddess Ceres. It is enough for
me, at present, to show briefly that they absurdly torture the words of the
angel to mean the annual joy of a birth-day, while the angel restricts his
commendation to that joy which all godly persons would derive from the advantage
of his instruction. They rejoiced that a prophet was born to them, by whose
ministry they were led to the hope of
salvation,
15.
For he shall be
great. He confirms what he said
about
joy, for John had been selected for a
great and extraordinary purpose. These words are not so much intended to extol
his eminent virtues as to proclaim his great and glorious office; as Christ,
when he declares that among them
that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the
Baptist,
(<401111>Matthew
11:11,) refers less to the holiness of his life than to his ministry. What
follows immediately afterwards,
he shall drink neither wine nor
strong drink, must not be understood to
mean that John’s abstemiousness was a singular virtue, but that God was
pleased to distinguish his servant by this visible token, by which the world
would acknowledge him to be a continual Nazarite. The priests too abstained from
wine and strong drink, while they were performing their duties in the temple,
(<031009>Leviticus
10:9.) The same abstinence was enjoined on the Nazarites,
(<040603>Numbers
6:3,) until their vow should be fulfilled. By a striking mark God showed that
John was dedicated to him to be a Nazarite for his whole life, as we learn was
also the case with Samson,
(<071303>Judges
13:3, 4.) But we must not on this ground imagine that the worship of God
consists in abstinence from wine, as apish copyists select some part of the
actions of the fathers for an object of imitation. Only let all practice
temperance, let those who conceive it to be injurious to drink wine abstain of
their own accord, and let those who have it not endure the want with
contentment. As to the word
si>kera,
I fully agree with those who think that, like the Hebrew word
rkç,
it denotes any sort of manufactured wine.
He shall be filled with the Holy
Ghost. These words, I think, convey
nothing more than that John would manifest such a disposition as would hold out
the hope of future greatness. By disposition I mean not such as is found even in
ungodly men, but what corresponds to the excellence of his office. The meaning
is, the power and grace of the Spirit will appear in him not only when he shall
enter upon his public employment, but even from the womb he shall excel in the
gifts of the Spirit, which will be a token and pledge of his future character.
From the
womb, means from his earliest infancy.
The power of the Spirit, I acknowledge, did operate in John, while he was yet in
his mother’s womb; but here, in my opinion, the angel meant something
else, that John, even when a child, would be brought forward to the public gaze,
accompanied by extraordinary commendation of the grace of God. As to
fullness,
there is no occasion for entering into the subtle disputations, or rather
the trifling, of the sophists; for Scripture conveys nothing more by this word
than the pre-eminent and very uncommon abundance of the gifts of the Spirit. We
know, that to Christ alone the Spirit was given without measure,
(<430334>John
3:34,)that we may draw out of his fullness,
(<430116>John
1:16 ;) while to others it is distributed according to a fixed measure,
(<461211>1
Corinthians 12:11;
<490407>Ephesians
4:7.) But those who are more plentifully endued with grace beyond the ordinary
capacity, are said to be full of the Holy Ghost. Now, as the more plentiful
influence of the Spirit was in John an extraordinary gift of God, it ought to be
observed that the Spirit is not bestowed on all from their very infancy, but
only when it pleases God. John bore from the womb a token of future rank. Saul,
while tending the herd, remained long without any mark of royalty, and, when at
length chosen to be king, was suddenly turned into another man,
(<091006>1
Samuel 10:6.) Let us learn by this example that, from the earliest infancy to
the latest old age, the operation of the Spirit in men is
free.
16.
And many of the children of
Israel shall he bring back. These words
show the shamefully dissolute conduct which then prevailed in the Church, for
those in whom conversion to God could take place must have been apostates. And
certainly corrupt doctrine, depraved morals, and disorderly government, were
such as to render it next to a miracle that a very few continued in godliness.
But if the ancient Church was so awfully dissolute, it is a frivolous pretext by
which the Papists defend their own superstitions, that it is impossible for the
Church to err, particularly since they include under this designation not the
genuine and elect children of God, but the crowd of the
ungodly.
But John appears to have more ascribed to him here
than belongs to man. For conversion to God renews men to a spiritual fife, and
therefore is not only God’s own work, but surpasses even the creation of
men. In this way ministers might seem to be made equal, and even superior, to
God viewed as Creator; since to be born again to a heavenly life is a greater
work than to be born as mortals on the earth. The answer is easy; for when the
Lord bestows so great praise on the outward doctrine, he does not separate it
from the secret influence of his Spirit. As God chooses men to be his ministers
whose services he employs for the edification of his Church, he at the same time
operates by them, through the secret influence of his Spirit, that their labors
may be efficacious and fruitful. Wherever Scripture applauds this efficacy in
the ministry of men, let us learn to attribute it to the grace of the Spirit,
without which the voice of man would have spent itself uselessly in the air.
Thus, when Paul boasts that he is a minister of the Spirit,
(<470306>2
Corinthians 3:6,) he claims nothing separately for himself, as if by his voice
he penetrated into the hearts of men, but asserts the power and grace of the
Spirit in his ministry. These expressions are worthy of remark; because Satan
labors, with amazing contrivance, to lower the effect of doctrine, in order that
the grace of the Spirit connected with it may be weakened. The outward
preaching, I acknowledge, can do nothing separately or by itself; but as it is
an instrument of divine power for our salvation, and through the grace of the
spirit an efficacious instrument,
what God hath joined together let
us not put asunder,
(<401906>Matthew
19:6.)
That the glory of conversion and faith, on the other
hand, may remain undivided with God alone, Scripture frequently reminds us that
ministers are nothing in themselves; but in such cases he compares them with
God,
that no one may wickedly steal the honor from God and convey it to them. In
short, those whom God, by the aid of the minister, converts to himself, are said
to be converted by the minister, because he is nothing more than the hand of
God; and both are expressly asserted in this passage. Of the efficacy of the
doctrine we have now said enough. That it lies not in the will and power of the
minister to bring men back to God, we conclude from this that John did not
indiscriminately bring all back, (which he would unquestionably have done, if
every thing had yielded to his wish,) but only brought those back whom it
pleased the Lord effectually to call. In a word, what is here taught by the
angel is laid down by Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, that faith cometh by
hearing,
(<451017>Romans
10:17,) but that those only to whom the Lord inwardly reveals his arm
(<235301>Isaiah
53:1;
<431238>John
12:38) are so enlightened as to believe.
17.
And he shall go before
him. By these words he points out what
would be John’s office, and distinguishes him by this mark from the other
prophets, who received a certain and peculiar commission, while John was sent
for the sole object of going before Christ, as a herald before a king. Thus also
the Lord speaks by Malachi,
“Behold, I will
send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me,”
(<390301>Malachi
3:1.)
In short, the calling of John had no other design
than to secure for Christ a willing ear, and to prepare for him disciples. As to
the angel making no express mention of Christ in this passage, but declaring
John to be the usher or standard-bearer of the eternal God, we learn from it the
eternal divinity of Christ. With
the spirit and power of Elijah. By the
words spirit and
power, I understand the power or
excellency of the Spirit, with which Elijah was endued; for we must not here
indulge in a dream like that of Pythagoras, that the soul of the prophet passed
into the body of John, but the same Spirit of God, who had acted efficaciously
in Elijah, afterwards exerted a similar power and efficacy in the Baptist. The
latter term,
power,
is added, by way of exposition, to denote the kind of grace which was the
loftiest distinction of Elijah, that, furnished with heavenly power, he restored
in a wonderful manner the decayed worship of God; for such a restoration was
beyond human ability. What John undertook was not less astonishing; and,
therefore, we ought not to wonder if it was necessary for him to enjoy the same
gift.
That he may bring back the hearts
of the fathers. Here the angel points
out the chief resemblance between John and Elijah. He declares that he was sent
to collect the scattered people into the unity of faith: for to
bring back the hearts of the
fathers is to restore them from discord
to reconciliation; from which it follows, that there had been some division
which rent and tore asunder the people. We know how dreadful was the revolt of
the people in the time of Elijah, how basely they had degenerated from the
fathers, so as hardly to deserve to be reckoned the children of Abraham. Those
who were thus disunited Elijah brought into holy harmony. Such was the reunion
of parents with children, which was begun by John, and at length finished by
Christ. Accordingly, when Malachi speaks of “turning the hearts of the
fathers to the children,”
(<390405>Malachi
4:5,) he intimates that the Church would be in a state of confusion when another
Elijah should appear; and what was that state is plain enough from history, and
will more fully appear in the proper place. The doctrine of Scripture had
degenerated through countless inventions, the worship of God was corrupted by
very gross superstition, religion was divided into various sects, priests were
openly wicked and Epicureans, the people indulged in every kind of wickedness;
in short, nothing remained sound. The expression,
bring back the hearts of the
fathers to the children, is not
literally true; for it was rather the
children
who had broken the covenant and departed from the right faith of their
fathers, that needed to be
brought
back. But though the Evangelist does not
so literally express that order of
bringing
back, the meaning is abundantly obvious,
that, by the instrumentality of John, God would again unite in holy harmony
those who had previously been disunited. Both clauses occur in the prophet
Malachi, who meant nothing more than to express a mutual
agreement.
But as men frequently enter into mutual conspiracies
which drive them farther from God, the angel explains, at the same time, the
nature of that bringing
back which he predicts,
the disobedient to the wisdom of
the just. This deserves attention, that
we may not foolishly allow ourselves to be classed with ungodly men under a
false pretense of harmony. Peace is a sounding and imposing term, and, whenever
the Papists meet with it in scripture, they eagerly seize upon it for the
purpose of raising dislike against us, as if we, who are endeavoring to withdraw
the world from its base revolt, and bring it back to Christ, were the authors of
divisions. But this passage affords a fine exposure of their folly, when the
angel explains the manner of a genuine and proper conversion; and declares its
support and link to be the wisdom
of the just. Accursed then be the peace
and unity by which men agree among themselves apart from God.
By the
wisdom of the just is unquestionably
meant Faith, as, on the contrary, by the
disobedient
are meant Unbelievers. And certainly this is a remarkable encomium on faith,
by which we are instructed, that then only are we truly wise unto righteousness
when we obey the word of the Lord. The world too has its wisdom, but a perverse
and therefore destructive wisdom, which is ever pronounced to be vanity; though
the angel indirectly asserts that the shadowy wisdom, in which the children of
the world delight, is depraved and accursed before God. This is therefore a
settled point, that, with the view of becoming reconciled to each other, men
ought first to return to peace with God.
What immediately follows about
making ready a people prepared
for the Lord, agrees with that clause,
that John, as the herald of Christ, would
go
before his face,
(<390301>Malachi
3:1 ;) for the design of his preaching was to make the people attentive to hear
the instruction of Christ. The Greek participle
kateskeuasme>non,
it is true, does not so properly mean perfection as the form and adaptation by
which things are fitted for their use. This meaning will not agree ill with the
present passage. John was commissioned to fit or mould to Christ a people which,
formerly ignorant and uneducated, had never shown a desire to
learn.
LUKE 1:18-20
|
LUKE
1:18-20
|
|
18. And Zacharias said to the
angel, How shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife is at an advanced
age. 19. And the angel answering said to him, I am Gabriel,
who stand before God, and have been sent to speak to thee, and to convey to thee
these glad tidings. 20. And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and
shalt not be able to speak, until the day when these things shall happen;
because thou hast not believed my words, which shall be fulfilled in their
time,
|
And Zacharias said to the
angel. Next follows the doubt of
Zacharias, and the punishment which the Lord inflicted on his unbelief. He had
prayed that he might obtain offspring, and now that it is promised, he
distrusts, as if he had forgotten his own prayers and faith. It might, at first
sight, appear harsh that God is so much offended by his reply. He brings forward
his old age as an objection. Abraham did the same; and yet his faith is so
highly applauded that Paul declares, he
“considered not his
own body now dead, neither yet the deadness of Sarah’s womb,”
(<450419>Romans
4:19,)
but unhesitatingly relied on the truth and power of
God. Zacharias inquires how, or by what proof, he might arrive at certainty. But
Gideon was not blamed for twice asking a sign,
(<070617>Judges
6:17, 37, 39.) Nay more, we are shortly after this informed of Mary’s
objection, How shall this be,
since I know not a man? (ver.
34,) which the angel passes over as if it contained nothing wrong. How comes
it then that God punishes Zacharias so severely, as if he had been guilty of a
very heinous sin? I do acknowledge that, if the words only are considered,
either all were equally to blame, or Zacharias did nothing wrong. But as the
actions and words of men must be judged from the state of the heart, we ought
rather to abide by the judgment of God, to whom the hidden secrets of the heart
are naked and opened,
(<580413>Hebrews
4:13.)
Unquestionably, the Lord beheld in Zacharias
something worse than his words may bear, and therefore his anger was kindled
against him for throwing back with distrust the promised favor. We have no
right, indeed, to lay down a law to God which would not leave him free to punish
in one the fault which he pardons in others. But it is very evident that the
case of Zacharias was widely different from that of Abraham, or Gideon, or Mary.
This does not appear in the words; and therefore the knowledge of it must be
left to God, whose eyes pierce the depths of the heart. Thus God distinguishes
between Sarah’s laugh
(<011812>Genesis
18:12) and Abraham’s,
(<011717>Genesis
17:17,) though the one apparently does not differ from the other. The reason why
Zacharias doubted was, that, stopping at the ordinary course of nature, he
ascribed less than he ought to have done to the power of God. They take a narrow
and disparaging view of the works of God, who believe that he will do no more
than nature holds out to be probable, as if his hand were limited to our senses
or confined to earthly means. But it belongs to faith to believe that more can
be done than carnal reason admits. Zacharias had no hesitation with regard to
its being the voice of God, but as he looked too exclusively at the world, an
indirect doubt arose in his mind if what he had heard would really happen. In
that respect he did no slight injury to God, for he went so far as to reason
with himself, whether God, who had undoubtedly spoken to him, should be regarded
as worthy of credit.
At the same time, we ought to know that Zacharias was
not so unbelieving as to turn aside wholly from the faith; for there is a
general faith which embraces the promise of eternal salvation and the testimony
of a free adoption. On the other hand, when God has once received us into favor,
he gives us many special promises,—that he will feed us, will deliver us
from dangers, will vindicate our reputation, will protect our life;—and so
there is a special faith which answers particularly to each of these promises.
Thus, it will sometimes happen, that one who trusts in God for the pardon of his
sins, and for salvation, will waver on some point,—will be too much
alarmed by the dread of death, too solicitous about daily food, or too anxious
about his plans. Such was the unbelief of Zacharias; for while he held the root
and foundation of faith, he hesitated only on one point, whether God would give
to him a son. Let us know, therefore, that those who are perplexed or disturbed
by weakness on some particular occasion do not entirely depart or fall off from
the faith, and that, though the branches of faith are agitated by various
tempests, it does not give way at the root. Besides, nothing was farther from
the intention of Zacharias than to call in question the truth of a divine
promise; but while he was convinced generally that God is faithful, he was
cunningly drawn by the craft and wiles of Satan to draw a wicked distinction. It
is all the more necessary for us to keep diligent watch: for which of us shall
be secure against the snares of the devil, when we learn that a man so eminently
holy, who had all his life maintained strict watchfulness over himself, was
overtaken by them?
19. I
am
Gabriel. By these words the angel
intimates that it was not his veracity, but that of God who sent him, and whose
message he brought, that had been questioned; and so he charges Zacharias with
having offered an insult to God. To
stand before
God signifies to be ready to yield
obedience. It implies that he is not a mortal man, but a heavenly
spirits—that he did not fly hither at random, but, as became a servant of
God, had faithfully performed his duty: and hence it follows that
God,
the author of the promise, had been treated with indignity and contempt in
the person of his ambassador. Of similar import is the declaration of Christ,
“he that despiseth you
despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent
me,”
(<421016>Luke
10:16.) Although the preaching of the gospel is not brought to us from
heaven by angels, yet, since God attested by so many miracles that he was its
author, and since Christ, the Prince and Lord of angels, once published it with
his own mouth,
(<580102>Hebrews
1:2,) that he might give it a perpetual sanction, its majesty ought to make as
deep an impression upon us, as if all the angels were heard loudly proclaiming
its attestation from heaven. Nay, the apostle, in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
not satisfied with elevating the word of the gospel, which speaks by the mouth
of men, to an equality with the law brought by angels, draws an argument from
the less to the greater.
“If the word spoken
by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just
recompence of rewards”
(<580202>Hebrews
2:2,)
“of
how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath
trodden under foot the Son of
God,”
(<581029>Hebrews
10:29,)
whose “voice shakes not the earth only, but
also heaven?”
(<581226>Hebrews
12:26.) Let us learn to render to God the obedience of faith, which he values
more highly than all sacrifices.
Gabriel
means the strength, or power, or pre-eminence of God, and this name is given
to the angel on our account, to instruct us that we must not ascribe to angels
any thing of their own, for whatever excellence they possess is from God. The
Greek participle,
paresthkw<v,
(standing,)
is in the past tense, but everybody knows that the past tense of such verbs
is often taken for the present, and particularly when a continued act is
expressed. The word
eujaggeli>sasqai
(to convey glad tidings)
aggravates the crime of Zacharias; for
he was ungrateful to God, who kindly promised a joyful and desirable
event.
20.
And, behold, thou shalt be
dumb. It was suitable that this kind of
punishment should be inflicted on Zacharias, that, being dumb, he might await
the fulfillment of the promise, which, instead of interrupting it by noisy
murmurs, he ought to have heard in silence. Faith has its silence to lend an ear
to the Word of God. It has afterwards its turn to speak and to answer Amen,
according to that passage,
“I will say to
them, Thou art my people, and they shall
say,
Thou art my God,”
(<280223>Hosea
2:23.)
But as Zacharias had rashly interrupted the Word of
God, he is not allowed this favor of breaking out immediately in thanksgiving,
but is denied for a time the use of his tongue, which had been too forward. Yet
God is pleased graciously to mitigate the punishment, first, by limiting its
duration to ten months, and next by not withholding from Zacharias the favor
which he was unworthy to enjoy. With the same gentleness does he treat us every
day: for when our faith is weak, and we throw out many obstacles, the truth of
God, in continuing to flow toward us, must of necessity break through them with
a kind of violence. That is the angel’s meaning, when he reproaches
Zacharias with unbelief, and yet declares that those things which Zacharias did
not believe would be accomplished
in due time. And so Zacharias is not a
little relieved by learning that his fault has not made void the promise of God,
which will afterwards be displayed in a more remarkable manner. It does
sometimes happen that, notwithstanding the opposition made by unbelievers, the
Lord bestows and fulfils what he had promised to them. We have a remarkable
instance of this in King Ahaz, who rejected the promised safety, and yet was
delivered from his enemies,
(<230712>Isaiah
7:12.) But that resulted, without any advantage to him, in the salvation of the
chosen people. It was otherwise with Zacharias, in whom the Lord chastises, and
at the same time pardons, the weakness of faith.
LUKE 1:21-25
|
LUKE
1:21-25
|
|
21. And the people were waiting
for Zacharias, and wondered that he tarried in the temple.
22. And when he came out, he could not speak to them: and
they perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple. And he made them to
understand by signs, f5
and remained speechless.
23. And it happened, when the days of his office were
fulfilled, he departed to his own house. 24. Now after these
days Elisabeth his wife conceived, and hid herself five months, saying,
25. Thus hath the Lord done to me in the days when he looked,
that he might take away my reproach among men.
|
21.
And the people were
waiting. Luke now relates that the
people were witnesses of this vision. Zacharias had tarried in the temple longer
than usual. This leads to the supposition that something uncommon has happened
to him. When he comes out, he makes known, by looks and gestures, that he has
been struck dumb. There is reason to believe, also, that there were traces of
alarm in his countenance. Hence they conclude that God has appeared to him.
True, there were few or no visions in that age, but the people remembered that
formerly, in the time of their fathers, they were of frequent occurrence. It is
not without reason, therefore, that they draw this conclusion from obvious
symptoms: for it was not an ordinary occurrence, [it was not a common accident,
but rather an astonishing work of God,
f6] that he became suddenly dumb
without disease, and after a more than ordinary delay came out of the temple in
a state of amazement. The word
temple,
as we have already mentioned, is put for the sanctuary, where the altar of
incense stood,
(<023001>Exodus
30:1.) From this place the priests, after performing their sacred functions,
were wont to go out into their own court, for the purpose of blessing the
people.
23.
When the days were
fulfilled.
Leitourgi>a
is employed by Luke to denote a charge or office, which passed, as we have
said, to each of them in regular order,
(<132403>1
Chronicles 24:3.) We are told that, when the time of his office had expired,
Zacharias returned home. Hence we conclude that, so long as the priests were
attending in their turns, they did not enter their own houses, that they might
be entirely devoted and attached to the worship of God. For this purpose
galleries were constructed around the walls of the temple, in which they had
“chambers,”
(<110605>1
Kings 6:5.) The law did not, indeed, forbid a priest to enter his house, but, as
it did not permit those who ate the show-bread to come near their wives,
(<092104>1
Samuel 21:4,) and as many persons were disposed to treat sacred things in an
irreverent manner, this was probably discovered to be a remedy, that, being
removed from all temptations, they might preserve themselves pure and clear from
every defilement. And they were not only discharged from intercourse with their
wives, but from the use of wine and every kind of intoxicating drink,
(<031009>Leviticus
10:9.) While they were commanded to change their mode of living, it was
advantageous for them not to depart from the temple, that the very sight of the
place might remind them to cultivate such purity as the Lord had enjoined. It
was proper also to withdraw every means of gratification, that they might devote
themselves more unreservedly to their office.
The Papists of the present day employ this as a
pretense for defending the tyrannical law of celibacy. They argue thus. The
priests were formerly enjoined to withdraw from their wives, while they were
engaged in religious services. Most properly is perpetual continence now
demanded from the priests, who not in their turn, but every day, offer
sacrifices; more especially since the importance of religious services is far
higher than it was under the law. But I should like to know why they do not also
abstain from wine and strong drink. For we are not at liberty to separate
commandments which God has joined, so as to keep the one half and disregard the
other. Intercourse with wives is not so expressly forbidden as the drinking of
wine,
(<264421>Ezekiel
44:21.) If, under the pretense of the law, the Pope enjoins celibacy on his
priests, why does he allow them wine? Nay, on this principle, all priests ought
to be thrown into some retired apartments of the churches, to pass their whole
life immured in prisons, and excluded from the society of women and of the
people.
It is now abundantly clear that they wickedly shelter
themselves under the law of God, to which they do not adhere. But the full
solution of the difficulty depends on the distinction between the law and the
gospel. A priest stood in the presence of God, to expiate the sins of the
people, to be, as it were, a mediator between God and men. He who sustained that
character ought to have had something peculiar about him, that he might be
distinguished from the common rank of men, and recognised as a figure of the
true Mediator. Such, too, was the design of the holy garments and the anointing.
In our day the public ministers and pastors of the church have nothing of this
description. I speak of the ministers whom Christ has appointed to feed his
flock, not of those whom the Pope commissions, as executioners rather than
priests, to murder Christ. Let us therefore rest in the decision of the Spirit,
which pronounces that “marriage is honorable in all,”
(<581304>Hebrews
13:4.)
24.
And hid
herself. This appears very strange, as
if she had been ashamed of the blessing of God. Some think that she did not,
venture to appear in public, so long as the matter was uncertain, for fear of
exposing herself to ridicule, if her expectation were disappointed. In my
opinion, she was so fully convinced of the promise made to her, that she had no
doubt of its accomplishment. When she saw a severe punishment inflicted on her
husband for “speaking unadvisedly with his lips,”
(<19A633>Psalm
106:33,) did she, for five successive months, cherish in her mind a similar
doubt? But her words show clearly that her expectation was not doubtful or
uncertain. By saying, thus hath
the Lord done to me, she expressly and
boldly affirms that his favor was ascertained. There might be two reasons for
the delay. Until this extraordinary work of God was manifest, she might hesitate
to expose it to the diversified opinions of men, for the world frequently
indulges in light, rash, and irreverent talking about the works of God. Another
reason might be that, when she was all at once discovered to be pregnant, men
might be more powerfully excited to praise God. [For, when the works of God show
themselves gradually, in process of time we make less account of them than if
the thing had been accomplished all at once, without our having ever heard of
it—Fr.] It was not, therefore, on her own account, but rather with a view
to others, that Elisabeth hid
herself.
25.
Thus hath the Lord done to
me. She extols in private the goodness
of God, until the time is fully come for making it generally known. There is
reason to believe that her husband had informed her by writing of the promised
offspring, in consequence of which she affirms with greater certainty and
freedom that God was the author of this favor. This is confirmed by the
following words, when he looked,
that he might take away my reproach; for
she assigns it as the cause of her barrenness that the favor of God had been at
that time withdrawn from her. Among earthly blessings, Scripture speaks in the
highest terms of the gift of offspring. And justly: for, if the productiveness
of the inferior animals is his blessing, the increase and fruitfulness of the
human race ought to be reckoned a much higher favor. It is no small or mean
honor, that God, who alone is entitled to be regarded as a Father, admits the
children of the dust to share with him this title. Let us, therefore, hold this
doctrine, that
“children are an
heritage of the Lord,
and the fruit
of the womb is his reward,”
(<19C703>Psalm
127:3.)
But Elisabeth looked farther; for, though barren and
old, she had conceived by a remarkable miracle, and contrary to the ordinary
course of nature.
That he might take away my
reproach. Not without reason has
barrenness been always accounted a
reproach:
for the blessing of the womb is enumerated among the signal instances of the
divine kindness. Some think that this was peculiar to the ancient people:
because Christ was to come from the seed of Abraham. But this had no reference,
except to the tribe of Judah. Others think more correctly that the
multiplication of the holy people was happy and blessed, as was said to Abraham,
“I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth,”
(<011316>Genesis
13:16;) and again,
“Tell the stars, if
thou be able to number them: so shall thy seed be,”
(<011505>Genesis
15:5.)
But we ought to connect the universal blessing, which
extends to the whole human race, with the promise made to Abraham, which is
peculiar to the church of God,
(<011315>Genesis
13:15.) Let parents learn to be thankful to God for the children which he has
given them, and let those who have no offspring acknowledge that God has humbled
them in this matter. Elisabeth speaks of it exclusively as a reproach
among
men: for it is a temporal chastisement,
from which we will suffer no loss in the kingdom of heaven.
LUKE 1:26-33
|
LUKE
1:26-33
|
|
26. Now in the sixth month the
angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
27. To a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of
the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. 28. And
the angel, coming in to her, said, Hail, thou who hast found favor, the Lord is
with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29. But when she had
seen him, she was agitated by his address, and was considering what that
salutation would be. 30. And the angel saith to her, Fear
not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God. 31. Behold,
thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son, and thou shalt
call his name JESUS. 32. He shall be great, and shall be
called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of
David his father: 33. And he shall reign over the house of
Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
|
26. Now
in the sixth
month. It was a wonderful dispensation
of the divine purpose, and far removed from the ordinary judgment of men, that
God determined to make the beginning of the generation of the herald more
illustrious than that of his own Son. The prophecy respecting John was published
in the temple and universally known: Christ is promised to a virgin in an
obscure town of Judea, and this prophecy remains buried in the breast of a young
woman. But it was proper that, even from the birth of Christ, that saying should
be fulfilled,
“it
pleased God by foolishness to save them that
believe,”
(<460121>1
Corinthians 1:21.)
The treasure of this mystery was committed by him to
a virgin in such a manner, that at length, when the proper time came, it might
be communicated to all the godly. It was, I own, a mean kind of guardianship;
but whether for trying the humility of faith, or restraining the pride of the
ungodly, it was the best adapted. Let us learn, even when the reason does not
immediately appear, to submit modestly to God, and let us not be ashamed to
receive instruction from her who carried in her womb Christ the eternal
“wisdom of God,”
(<460124>1
Corinthians 1:24.) There is nothing which we should more carefully avoid than
the proud contempt that would deprive us of the knowledge of the inestimable
secret, which God has purposely
“hid from the wise
and prudent, and revealed” to the humble
and “to
babes,”
(<421021>Luke
10:21.)
It was, I think, for the same reason that he chose
a virgin betrothed to a
man. There is no foundation for
Origen’s opinion, that he did this for the purpose of concealing from
Satan the salvation which he was preparing to bestow on men. The marriage was a
veil held out before the eyes of the world, that he who was commonly
“supposed to be the
son of Joseph”
(<420323>Luke
3:23) might at length be believed and acknowledged by the godly to be the
Son of God. Yet the entrance of Christ into the world was not destitute of
glory; for the splendor of his Godhead was manifested from the commencement by
his heavenly Father. Angels announced that
“a Savior was
born,”
(<420211>Luke
2:11;) but their voice was only heard by the shepherds, and traveled no
farther. One miracle,—everywhere published by
“the wise men who
came from the east,”
(<400201>Matthew
2:1) that they had seen a star which proclaimed the birth of the Highest
King,—may have been highly celebrated. Yet we see how God kept his Son, as
it were, in concealment, until the time of his full manifestation arrived, and
then erected for him a platform, that he might be beheld by
all.
The participle
memnhsteume>nhn,
which is employed by the Evangelist, signifies that the virgin had then been
engaged to her bridegroom, but was not yet given as a wife to her husband. For
it was customary among Jewish parents to keep their daughters some time at home,
after they had been betrothed to men; otherwise, the law relating to the
seduction of a “betrothed damsel”
(<052223>Deuteronomy
22:23) would have been unnecessary. Luke says that
Joseph was of the house of
David; for families are usually reckoned
by the names of the men; but on this point we shall speak more fully in another
place.
28.
Hail, thou who hast obtained
favor. The angel’s commission
being of an astonishing and almost incredible description, he opens it with a
commendation of the grace of God. And certainly, since our limited capacities
admit too slender a portion of knowledge for comprehending the vast greatness of
the works of God, our best remedy is, to elevate them to meditation on his
boundless grace. A conviction of the Divine goodness is the entrance of faith,
and the angel properly observes this order, that, after preparing the heart of
the virgin by meditation on the grace of God, he may enlarge it to receive an
incomprehensible mystery. For the participle
kecaritwme>nh,
which Luke employs, denotes the undeserved favor of God. This appears more
clearly from the Epistle to the Ephesians, (1:6,) where, speaking of our
reconciliation to
God,
Paul says, God “hath made us accepted
(ejcari>twsen)
in the Beloved:” that is, he has received into his favor, and embraced
with kindness, us who were formerly his enemies.
The angel adds,
the Lord is with
thee. To those on whom he has once
bestowed his love God shows himself gracious and kind, follows and
“crowns them with loving-kindness,”
(<19A304>Psalm
103:4.) Next comes the third clause, that she is
blessed among women.
Blessing is here put down as the result
and proof of the Divine kindness. The word
Blessed
does not, in my opinion, mean, Worthy of praise; but rather means, Happy.
Thus,
Paul often supplicates for believers, first “grace” and then
“peace,” (Romans 1:7; Ephesians 1:2,) that is, every kind of
blessings; implying that we shall then be truly happy and rich, when we are
beloved by God, from whom all blessings proceed. But if Mary’s happiness,
righteousness, and life, flow from the undeserved love of God, if her virtues
and all her excellence are nothing more than the Divine kindness, it is the
height of absurdity to tell us that we should seek from her what she derives
from another quarter in the same manner as ourselves. With extraordinary
ignorance have the Papists, by an enchanter’s trick, changed this
salutation into a prayer, and have carried their folly so far, that their
preachers are not permitted, in the pulpit, to implore the grace of the Spirit,
except through their Hail,
Mary.
f7 But not only are these words a
simple congratulation. They unwarrantably assume an office which does not belong
to them, and which God committed to none but an angel. Their silly ambition
leads them into a second blunder, for they salute a person who is
absent.
29.
When she had seen him, she
was agitated. Luke does not say that
she was
agitated by the presence of the angel,
but by his
address. Why then does he also mention
his presence?
f8 The reason, I think, is this.
Perceiving in the angel something of heavenly glory, she was seized with sudden
dread arising out of reverence for God.
She was
agitated, because she felt that she had
received a salutation, not from a mortal man, but from an angel of God. But Luke
does not say that she was so
agitated
as to have lost recollection. On the contrary, he mentions an indication of
an attentive and composed mind; for he afterwards adds,
and was considering what that
salutation would be: that is, what was
its object, and what was its meaning. It instantly occurred to her that the
angel had not been sent for a trifling purpose. This example reminds us, first,
that we ought not to be careless observers of the works of God; and, secondly,
that our consideration of them ought to be regulated by fear and
reverence.
30.
Fear not,
Mary. He bids her lay aside fear. Let us
always remember—what arises from the weakness of the flesh—that,
whenever the feeblest ray of the Divine glory bursts upon us, we cannot avoid
being alarmed. When we become aware, in good earnest, of the presence of
God,
we cannot think of it apart from its
effects.
f9 Accordingly, as we are all amenable
to his tribunal, fear gives rise to trembling, until God manifests himself as a
Father. The holy virgin saw in her own nation such a mass of crimes, that she
had good reason for dreading heavier punishments. To remove this fear, the angel
declares that he has come to certify and announce an inestimable blessing. The
Hebrew idiom, Thou hast found
favor, is used by Luke instead of,
“God has been merciful to thee:” for a person is said to
find
favor, not when he has sought it, but
when it has been freely offered to him. Instances of this are so well known,
that it would be of no use to quote them.
31.
Behold, thou shalt conceive
in thy womb. The angel adapts his words,
first to Isaiah’s prophecy,
(<230714>Isaiah
7:14,) and next to other passages of the Prophets, with the view of affecting
more powerfully the mind of the virgin: for such prophecies were well known and
highly esteemed among the godly. At the same time, it ought to be observed that
the angel did not merely speak in private to the ear of the virgin, but brought
glad
tidings,
(eujagge>lion,)
which were shortly afterwards to be published throughout the whole world. It
was not without the purpose of God, that the agreement, between ancient
prophecies and the present message respecting the manifestation of Christ, was
so clearly pointed out. The word
conceive
is enough to set aside the dream of Marcion and Manichaeus: for it is easy
to gather from it that Mary brought forth not an ethereal body or phantom, but
the fruit which she had previously conceived in her womb.
Thou shalt call his name
Jesus. The reason of the name is given
by Matthew: for he shall save his
people from their sins,
(<400121>Matthew
1:21.) And so the name contains a promise of salvation, and points out the
object for which
Christ
was sent by the Father into the world, as he tells us that he “came
not to judge the world, but to save the world,”
(<431247>John
12:47.) Let us remember that not by the will of men, but by the command of God,
was this name given to him by the angel, that our faith may have its foundation,
not in earth, but in heaven. It is derived from the Hebrew word
[çy,
salvation, from which comes
[yçwh,
which signifies to save. It is a waste of ingenuity to contend that it differs
from the Hebrew name
[wçwhy,
(Jehoshua or Joshua.) The Rabbins everywhere write the word
Jesu;
and they do this with evident malice, that they may not bestow on Christ an
honorable name, but, on the contrary, may insinuate that he is some pretended
Jew. Their manner of writing it, accordingly, is of no more importance than the
barking of a dog. The objection that it is far beneath the dignity of the Son of
God to have a name in common with others, might equally apply to the name
Christ,
or
Anointed.
But the solution of both is easy. What was exhibited in shadow under the law
is fully and actually manifested in the Son of God; or, what was then a figure
is in him a substance. There is another objection of as little weight. They
assert that the name of Jesus is not worthy of veneration and awe, that at the
name of Jesus every knee should bow,
(<502609>Philippians
2:9, 10,) if it does not belong exclusively to the Son of God. For Paul does not
attribute to him a magical name, as if in its very syllables majesty resided,
but his language simply means that Christ has received from the Father the
highest authority, to which the whole world ought to submit. Let us then bid
adieu to such imaginations, and know, that the name
Jesus
was given to Christ, in order that believers may be instructed to seek in
him what had formerly been shadowed out under the
Law.
32.
He shall be
great. The angel had said the same thing
about John the Baptist, and yet did not intend to make him equal to Christ. But
the Baptist is great in his own class, while the greatness of Christ is
immediately explained to be such as raises him above all creatures. For to him
alone this belongs as his own peculiar prerogative to be called the Son of God.
So the apostle argues.
Unto which of the angels
said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?
(<580105>Hebrews
1:5.)
Angels and kings, I admit, are sometimes dignified
with this title in Scripture; but they are denominated in common the sons of
God, on account of their high rank. But it is perfectly clear and certain, that
God distinguishes his own Son from all the others, when he thus addresses him
particularly, Thou art my Son,
(<190207>Psalm
2:7.) Christ is not confounded either with angels or with men, so as to be one
of the multitude of the sons of God; but what is given to him no other has a
right to claim. The sons of God are kings, not certainly by natural right, but
because God has bestowed on them so great an honor. Even angels have no right to
this distinction, except on account of their high rank among creatures, in
subordination to the Great Head,
(<490121>Ephesians
1:21.) We too are sons, but by adoption, which we obtain by faith; for we have
it not from nature: Christ is the only Son, the only-begotten of the Father,
(<430114>John
1:14.)
The future tense of the verb, he SHALL BE CALLED
the Son of the
Highest, is tortured by that filthy
dog f10
Servetus to prove that Christ is not the eternal Son of
God,
but began to be so considered, when he took upon him our flesh. This is an
intolerable slander. He argues that Christ was not the Son of God before he
appeared in the world clothed with flesh; because the angel says,
He shall be
called. On the contrary, I maintain, the
words of the angel mean nothing more than that he, who had been the Son of God
from eternity, would be manifested as such in the flesh, (1 Timothy 3:16;) for
to be
called denotes clear knowledge. There is
a wide difference between the two statements,—that Christ began to be the
Son of God, which he was not before,—and that he was manifested among men,
in order that they might know him to be the person who had been formerly
promised. Certainly, in every age God has been addressed by his people as a
Father, and hence it follows, that he had a Son in heaven, from whom and by whom
men obtained the sonship. For men take too much upon them, if they venture to
boast of being the sons of God, in any other respect than as members of the
only-begotten Son,
(<430118>John
1:18.) Certain it is, that confidence in the Son alone, as Mediator, inspired
the holy fathers with confidence to employ so honorable an address. That more
complete knowledge, of which we are now speaking, is elsewhere explained by Paul
to mean, that we are now at liberty not only to call God our Father, but boldly
to cry, Abba, Father,
(<450815>Romans
8:15;
<480406>Galatians
4:6.)
The Lord God will give unto him the
throne of his father David. We have said
that the angel borrows from the prophets the titles which he bestows on Christ,
in order that the holy virgin might more readily acknowledge him to be the
Redeemer formerly promised to the fathers. Whenever the prophets speak of the
restoration of the church, they direct all the hope of believers to the kingdom
of David, so that it became a common maxim among the Jews, that the safety of
the church would depend on the prosperous condition of that kingdom, and that
nothing was more fitting and suitable to the office of the Messiah than to raise
up anew the kingdom of David. Accordingly, the name of David is sometimes
applied to the Messiah. “They shall serve the Lord their
God, and David their king,”
(<243009>Jeremiah
30:9.) Again, “my servant David shall be a prince among them,”
(<263424>Ezekiel
34:24; 37:24.) “They shall seek the Lord their God, and David their
king,”
(<280305>Hosea
3:5.) The passages in which he is called “the son of
David” are sufficiently well known. In a word, the angel declares that in
the person of Christ would be fulfilled the prediction of Amos, “In
that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen,”
(<300911>Amos
9:11.)
33.
And he shall reign over the
house of Jacob. As salvation was
promised, in a peculiar manner, to the Jews, (the covenant having been made with
their father Abraham,
<011707>Genesis
17:7,) and Christ, as Paul informs us, “was a minister of the
circumcision,”
(<451508>Romans
15:8,) the angel properly fixed his reign in that nation, as its peculiar seat
and residence. But this is in perfect accordance with other predictions, which
spread and extend the kingdom of Christ to the utmost limits of the earth. By a
new and wonderful adoption, God has admitted into the family of Jacob the
Gentiles, who formerly were strangers; though in such a manner that the Jews, as
the first-born, held a preferable rank; as it is said, “The Lord shall
send the rod of thy strength out of Zion,”
(<19B003>Psalm
110:3.) Christ’s throne was, therefore, erected among the people of
Israel, that he might thence subdue the whole world. All whom he has joined by
faith to the children of Abraham are accounted the true Israel. Though the Jews,
by their revolt, have separated themselves from the church of God, yet the Lord
will always preserve till the end some “remnants”
(<451105>Romans
11:5;) for his “calling is without repentances”
(<451129>Romans
11:29.) The body of the people is apparently cut off; but we ought to remember
the
mystery
of which Paul speaks,
(<451125>Romans
11:25,) that God will at length gather some of the Jews out of the dispersion.
Meanwhile, the church, which is scattered through the whole world, is the
spiritual house of
Jacob; for it drew its origin from
Zion.
For
ever. The angel points out the sense in
which it was so frequently predicted by the prophets that the kingdom of David
would be without end. It was only during his own reign and that of Solomon, that
it remained wealthy and powerful Rehoboam, the third successor, hardly retained
a tribe and a half. The angel now declares that, when it has been established in
the person of Christ, it will not be liable to destruction, and, to prove this,
employs the words of Daniel, (7:14,)
of his kingdom there shall be no
end.
f11 Though the meaning of the words
is, that God will for ever protect and defend the kingdom of Christ and the
church, so that it shall not perish on the earth “as long as the sun and
moon endure,”
(<197205>Psalm
72:5, 17,) yet its true perpetuity relates to the glory to come. So then,
believers follow each other in this life, by an uninterrupted succession, till
at length they are gathered together in heaven, where they shall reign without
end.
LUKE 1:34-38
|
LUKE
1:34-38
|
|
34. And Mary said to the angel,
How shall this be, since I know not a man? 35. And the angel
answering said to her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the
Highest shall overshadow thee: wherefore also the holy thing which shall be born
shall be called the Son of God. 36. And, behold, Elisabeth
thy cousin, even she hath conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth
month to her who was called barren: 37. For no word shall be
impossible with God. 38. And Mary said, Behold the handmaid
of the Lord: be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from
her.
|
34.
How shall this
be? The holy virgin appears to confine
the power of God within as narrow limits as Zacharias had formerly done; for
what is beyond the common order of nature, she concludes to be impossible. She
reasons in this manner. I know
not a man: how then can I believe that
what you tell me will happen? We ought not to give ourselves very much
trouble, f12
to acquit her of all blame. She ought immediately to have risen by faith to the
boundless power of God, which is not at all lettered to natural means, but sways
the whole world. Instead of this, she stops at the ordinary way of generation.
Still, it must be admitted that she does not hesitate or inquire in such a
manner as to lower the power of God to the level of her senses; but is only
carried away by a sudden impulse of astonishment to put this question. That she
readily embraced the promise may be concluded from this, that, though many
things presented themselves on the opposite side, she has no doubt but on one
point.
She might instantly have objected, where was that
throne of
David? for all the rank of kingly power
had been long ago set aside, and all the luster of royal descent had been
extinguished. Unquestionably, if she had formed her opinion of the matter
according to the judgment of the flesh, she would have treated as a fable what
the angel had told her. There can be no doubt that she was fully convinced of
the restoration of the church, and easily gave way to what the flesh would have
pronounced to be incredible. And then it is probable that the attention of the
public was everywhere directed at that time to the prediction of Isaiah,
in which God promises that he would raise up a rod out of the despised
stem of Jesse,
(<231101>Isaiah
11:1.) That persuasion of the kindness of God, which had been formed in the mind
of the virgin, led her to admit, in the fullest manner, that she had received a
message as to raising up anew the throne of David. If it be objected that there
was also another prediction, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
(<230714>Isaiah
7:14,) I reply, that this mystery was then very imperfectly understood. True,
the Fathers expected the birth of a King, under whose reign the people of God
would be happy and prosperous; but the manner of its accomplishment lay
concealed, as if it had been hidden by a veil. There is no wonder,
therefore, if the holy virgin puts a question on a subject hitherto unknown to
her.
The conjecture which some have drawn from these
words, that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and
altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing
herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy
covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God.
Although the Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they
have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at
her own pleasure. Besides, it is an idle and unfounded supposition that a
monastic life existed among the Jews.
We must reply, however, to another objection, that
the virgin refers to the future, and so declares that she will have no
intercourse with a man. The probable and simple explanation is, that the
greatness or rather majesty of the subject made so powerful an impression on the
virgin, that all her senses were bound and locked up in astonishment. When she
is informed that the Son of God will be born, she imagines something unusual,
and for that reason leaves conjugal intercourse out of view. Hence she breaks
out in amazement, How shall this
be? And so God graciously forgives her,
and replies kindly and gently by the angel, because, in a devout and serious
manner, and with admiration of a divine work, she had inquired
how that would
be, which, she was convinced, went
beyond the common and ordinary course of nature. In a word, this question was
not so contrary to faith, because it arose rather from admiration than from
distrust.
35.
The Holy Ghost shall come
upon thee. The angel does not explain
the manner, so as to satisfy curiosity, which there was no necessity for doing.
He only leads the virgin to contemplate the power of the Holy Spirit, and to
surrender herself silently and calmly to his guidance. The word
ejpeleu>setai,
shall come
upon, denotes that this would be an
extraordinary work, in which natural means have no place. The next clause is
added by way of exposition, and
the power of the Highest shall overshadow
thee: for the Spirit may be regarded as
the essential power of God, whose energy is manifested and exerted in the entire
government of the world, as well as in miraculous events. There is an elegant
metaphor in the word
ejpiskia>sei,
overshadow.
The
power
of God, by which he guards and protects his own people, is frequently
compared in Scripture to a
shadow,
(Psalm 17:8; 57:1; 91:1.) But it appears to have another and peculiar
meaning in this passage. The operation of the Spirit would be secret, as if an
intervening cloud did not permit it to be beheld by the eyes of men. Now, as
God, in performing miracles, withholds from us the manner of his proceedings, so
what he chooses to conceal from us ought to be viewed, on our part, with
seriousness and adoration.
Therefore also the holy thing which
shall be born. This is a confirmation of
the preceding clause: for the angel shows that Christ must not be born by
ordinary generation,
f13 that he may be
holy,
and that he may be the Son of
God; that is, that in holiness and glory
he may be high above all creatures, and may not hold an ordinary rank among men.
Heretics, who imagine that he became the Son of God after his human generation,
seize on the particle
therefore
as meaning that he would be called the Son of God,
because
he was conceived in a remarkable manner by the power of the Holy Spirit. But
this is a false conclusion: for, though he was manifested to be the Son of God
in the flesh, it does not follow that he was not the Word begotten of the Father
before the ages. On the contrary, he who had been the Son of God in his eternal
Godhead, appeared also as the Son of God in human flesh. This passage not only
expresses a unity of person in Christ, but at the same time points out that, in
clothing himself with human flesh, Christ is the Son of God. As the name, Son
of
God, belonged to the divine essence of
Christ from the beginning, so now it is applied unitedly to both natures,
because the secret and heavenly manner of generation has separated him from the
ordinary rank of men. In other passages, indeed, with the view of asserting that
he is truly man, he calls himself the Son of man,
(<430527>John
5:27;) but the truth of his human nature is not inconsistent with his deriving
peculiar honor above all others from his divine generation, having been
conceived out of the ordinary way of nature by the Holy Spirit. This gives us
good reason for growing confidence, that we may venture more freely to call God
our Father, because his only Son, in order that we might have a Father in common
with him, chose to be our brother.
It ought to be observed also that Christ, because he
was conceived by a spiritual power, is called
the holy
seed. For, as it was necessary that he
should be a real man, in order that he might expiate our sins, and vanquish
death and Satan in our flesh; so was it necessary, in order to his cleansing
others, that he should be free from every spot and blemish,
(<600119>1
Peter 1:19.) Though Christ was formed of the seed of Abraham, yet he contracted
no defilement from a sinful nature; for the Spirit of God kept him pure from the
very commencement: and this was done not merely that he might abound in personal
holiness, but chiefly that he might sanctify his own people. The manner of
conception, therefore, assures us that we have a Mediator separate from sinners,
(<580726>Hebrews
7:26.)
36.
And, behold, Elisabeth thy
cousin. By an instance taken from her
own relatives, the angel encourages the faith of Mary to expect a miracle. If
neither the barrenness nor the old age of Elisabeth could prevent God from
making her a mother, there was no better reason why Mary should confine her view
within the ordinary limits of nature, when she beheld such a demonstration of
divine power in her
cousin.
He mentions expressly the
sixth month; because in the fifth month
a woman usually feels the child quicken in the womb, so that the
sixth
month removes all doubt. True, Mary
ought to have placed such a reliance on the bare word of God as to require no
support to her faith from any other quarter; but, to prevent farther hesitation,
the Lord condescends to strengthen his promise by this new aid. With equal
indulgence does he cheer and support us every day; nay, with greater indulgence,
because our faith is weaker. That we may not doubt his truth, testimonies to
confirm it are brought by him from every direction.
A question arises, how Elisabeth, who was
of the daughters of
Aaron, (ver. 5,) and Mary, who was
descended from the stock of David, could be
cousins.
This appears to be at variance with the law, which prohibited women from
marrying into a different tribe from their own,
(<043606>Numbers
36:6.) With respect to the law, if we look at its object, it forbade those
intermarriages only which might “remove inheritances from tribe to
tribe,”
(<043607>Numbers
36:7.) No such danger existed, if any woman of the tribe of Judah married a
priest, to whom an inheritance could not be conveyed. The same argument would
hold if a woman of the tribe of Levi passed into another tribe. It is possible
that the mother of the holy virgin might be descended from the family of Aaron,
and so her daughter might be
cousin
to Elisabeth.
37.
For no word shall be
impossible with God. If we choose to
take
rJh~ma,
word,
in its strict and native sense, the meaning is, that God will do what he
hath promised, for no hinderance can resist his power. The argument will be, God
hath promised, and therefore he will accomplish it; for we ought not to allege
any impossibility in opposition to his
word.
But as a
word
often means a
thing
in the idiom of the Hebrew language, (which the Evangelists followed, though
they wrote in Greek,
f14 ) we explain it more simply, that
nothing is impossible with
God. We ought always, in- deed, to hold
it as a maxim, that they wander widely from the truth who, at their pleasure,
imagine the power of God to be something beyond his
word;
for we ought always to contemplate his boundless power, that it may
strengthen our hope and confidence. But it is idle, and unprofitable, and even
dangerous, to argue what God can do unless we also take into account what he
resolves to do. The angel does here what God frequently does in Scripture,
employs a general doctrine to confirm one kind of promise. This is the true and
proper use of a general doctrine, to apply its scattered promises to the present
subject, whenever we are uneasy or distressed; for so long as they retain their
general form, they make little impression upon us. We need not wonder if Mary is
reminded by the angel of the power of God; for our distrust of it diminishes
very greatly our confidence in the promises. All acknowledge in words that God
is Almighty; but, if he promises any thing beyond what we are able to
comprehend, we remain in doubt.
f15 Whence comes this but from our
ascribing to his power nothing more than what our senses receive? Thus Paul,
commending the faith of Abraham, says, that he
“gave glory to God,
being fully persuaded that what he had promised he was able also to
perform,”
(<450420>Romans
4:20, 21.)
In another passage, speaking of the hope of eternal
life, he sets before him the promise of God. “I know,” says
he,
“whom I have
believed, and I am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed
unto him,”
(<550112>2
Timothy 1:12.)
This may seem to be a small portion of faith; for no
man, however wicked, openly denies God’s claim to be Almighty. But he who
has the power of God firmly and thoroughly fixed in his heart will easily
surmount the other obstacles which present themselves to faith. It ought to be
observed, however, that the power of God is viewed by true faith, if I may use
the expression, as
efficacious.
f16 For God is and wishes to be
acknowledged as powerful, that by the accomplishment itself he may prove his
faithfulness.
38.
Behold the handmaid of the
Lord. The holy virgin does not allow
herself to dispute any farther: and yet many things might unquestionably have
obtruded themselves, to repress that faith, and even to draw off her attention
from what was said to her by the angel. But she stops the entrance of opposing
arguments, and compels herself to obey. This is the real proof of faith, when we
restrain our minds, and, as it were, hold them captive, so that they dare not
reply this or that to God: for boldness in disputing, on the other hand, is the
mother of unbelief. These are weighty expressions,
Behold the handmaid of the
Lord: for she gives and devotes herself
unreservedly to God, that he may freely dispose of her according to his
pleasure. Unbelievers withdraw from his hand, and, as far as lies in their
power, obstruct his work: but faith presents us before God, that we may be ready
to yield obedience. But if the holy virgin was
the handmaid of the
Lord, because she yielded herself
submissively to his authority, there cannot be worse obstinacy than to fly from
him, and to refuse that obedience which he deserves and requires. In a word, as
faith alone makes us obedient servants to God, and gives us up to his power, so
unbelief makes us rebels and deserters.
Be it unto
me. This clause may be interpreted in
two ways. Either the holy virgin, leaving her former
subject,
f17 betakes herself suddenly to
prayers and supplications; or, she proceeds in the same
strain
f18 to yield and surrender herself to
God. I interpret it simply that she is convinced of the power of God, follows
cheerfully where he calls, trusts also to his promise, and not only expects, but
eagerly desires, its accomplishment. [We must also observe that she is convinced
on the word of the angel, because she knows that it proceeded from God: valuing
its credit, not with reference to him who was its messenger, but with reference
to him who was its author.
f19 ]
LUKE 1:39-45
|
LUKE
1:39-45
|
|
39. And Mary arising in those days
went into the mountainous parts
f20
with haste, into a city of Judah,
40. And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted
Elisabeth. 41. And it happened, when Elisabeth heard the
salutation of Mary, the babe started
f21
in her womb, and Elisabeth was filled with the
Holy Ghost, 42. And exclaimed with a loud voice, and said,
Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
43. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord
should come to me? 44. For lo, when the voice of thy
salutation was made
f22
in my ears, the babe started for joy in my
womb. 45. And blessed is she who believed: for there shall be
a fulfillment
f23
to those things which have been told her by the
Lord.
f24
|
39.
And Mary
arising. This departure mentioned by
Luke proves that Mary’s faith was not of a transitory nature: for the
promise of God does not fade away with the presence of the angel, but is
impressed upon her mind. The
haste
indicates a sincere and strong affection. We may infer from it that the
Virgin disregarded every thing else and formed a just estimate of this grace of
God. But it may be inquired, what was her object in undertaking this journey? It
certainly was not made for the mere purpose of inquiry: for she cherished in her
heart by faith the Son of God as already conceived in her womb. Nor do I agree
with those who think that she came for the purpose of congratulating
Elisabeth.
f25 I think it more probable that her
object was, partly to increase and strengthen her faith, and partly to celebrate
the grace of God which both had received.
f26
There is no absurdity in supposing, that she sought
to confirm her faith by a view of the miracle, which had been adduced to her
with no small effect by the angel. For, though believers are satisfied with the
bare word of God, yet they do not disregard any of his works which they find to
be conducive to strengthen their faith. Mary was particularly bound to receive
the assistance which had been offered, unless she chose to reject what the Lord
had freely given to her. Besides, the mutual interview might arouse both
Elisabeth and herself to higher gratitude, as is evident from what follows. The
power of God became more remarkable and striking by taking in at one view both
favors, the very comparison of which gave no small additional luster. Luke does
not name the city in which Zacharias dwelt, but only mentions that it belonged
to the tribe of Judah, and that it was situated in a hilly district. Hence we
infer that it was farther distant than Jerusalem was from the town of
Nazareth.
41.
When Elisabeth
heard. It is natural that sudden joy, on
the part of a pregnant woman, should cause a motion of the child in her womb;
but Luke intended to express an extraordinary occurrence. No good purpose would
be served by involving ourselves in intricate questions, if the child was aware
of the presence of Christ, or felt an emotion of piety: it is enough for us that
the babe
started by a secret movement of the
Spirit. Luke does not say that the feeling belonged to the child, but rather
intimates that this part of the Divine operation took place in the mother
herself, that the babe started in
her womb. The expression, she
was filled with the Holy
Ghost, means that she was suddenly
endued with the gift of prophecy to an unusual extent: for the gifts of the
Spirit had not formerly been wanting in her, but their power then appeared more
abundant and extraordinary.
42.
Blessed art
thou. She seems to put Mary and Christ
on an equal footing, which would have been highly improper. But I cheerfully
agree with those who think that the second clause assigns the reason; for
and
often signifies
because.
Accordingly, Elisabeth affirms, that her cousin was
blessed
on account of the blessedness of her child. To carry Christ in her womb was
not Mary’s first
blessedness,
but was greatly inferior to the distinction of being born again by the
Spirit of God to a new life. Yet she is justly called
blessed,
on whom God bestowed the remarkable honor of bringing into the world his own
Son, through whom she had been spiritually renewed. And at this day, the
blessedness brought to us by Christ cannot be the subject of our praise, without
reminding us, at the same time, of the distinguished honor which God was pleased
to bestow on Mary, in making her the mother of his Only Begotten
Son.
43.
And whence is this to
me? The happy medium observed by
Elisabeth is worthy of notice. She thinks very highly of the favors bestowed by
God on Mary, and gives them just commendation, but yet does not praise them more
highly than was proper, which would have been a dishonor to God. For such is the
native depravity of the world, that there are few persons who are not chargeable
with one of these two faults. Some, delighted beyond measure with themselves,
and desirous to shine alone, enviously despise the gifts of God in their
brethren; while others praise them in so superstitious a manner as to convert
them into idols. The consequence has been, that the first rank is assigned to
Mary, and Christ is lowered as it were to the
footstool
f27 . Elisabeth, again, while she
praises her, is so far from hiding the Divine glory, that she ascribes
everything to God. And yet, though she acknowledges the superiority of Mary to
herself and to others, she does not envy her the higher distinction, but
modestly declares that she had obtained more than she deserved.
She calls Mary
the mother of her
Lord. This denotes a unity of person in
the two natures of Christ; as if she had said, that he who was begotten a mortal
man in the womb of Mary is, at the same time, the eternal God. For we must bear
in mind, that she does not speak like an ordinary woman at her own suggestion,
but merely utters what was dictated by the Holy Spirit. This name
Lord
strictly belongs to the Son of God “manifested in the flesh,”
(<540316>1
Timothy 3:16,) who has received from the Father all power, and has been
appointed the highest ruler of heaven and earth, that by his agency God may
govern all things. Still, he is in a peculiar manner the
Lord
of believers, who yield willingly and cheerfully to his authority; for it is
only of “his body” that he is “the head,”
(<490122>Ephesians
1:22, 23.) And so Paul says, “though there be lords many, yet to
us,” that is, to the servants of faith, “there is one Lord,”
(<460805>1
Corinthians 8:5, 6.) By mentioning the sudden movement of the babe which she
carried in her womb, (ver. 44,) as heightening that divine favor of which she is
speaking, she unquestionably intended to affirm that she felt something
supernatural and divine.
45.
And blessed is she that
believed. It was by a hidden movement of
the Spirit, as is evident from a former statement of Luke, that Elisabeth spoke.
The same Spirit declares that Mary is
blessed
because she
believed,
and by commending Mary’s faith, informs us generally in what the true
happiness of men consists. Mary was
blessed,
because, embracing in her heart the promise of God, she conceived and
brought forth a Savior to herself and to the whole which the Judges occupied; as
when Cicero proposes to appeal from the Senate to the popular assembly,”a
subselliis in rem deferre.” Calvin may have had in his eye such a phrase
as “imi subsellii vir,” and his meaning is fully brought out by his
own version, “sur le marchepied.” —
Ed.
world. This was peculiar to her: but as we have not a drop of righteousness,
life, or any other benefit, except so far as the Lord presents them to us in his
Word, it is faith alone that rescues us from the lowest poverty and misery, and
makes us partakers of true happiness.
There is great weight in this clause,
for there shall be a fulfillment
to those things which have been told her.
The meaning is, faith gives way to the divine promises, that they may obtain
their accomplishment in us. The truth of God certainly does not depend on the
will of men, but God remains always true,
(<450304>Romans
3:4,) though the whole world—unbelievers and liars—should attempt to
ruin his veracity. Yet, as unbelievers are unworthy to obtain the fruit of the
promises, so Scripture teaches us, that by faith alone they are powerful for our
salvation. God offers his benefits indiscriminately to all, and faith opens its
bosom f28
to receive them; while unbelief allows them to pass away, so as not to reach
us. If there had been any unbelief in Mary, that could not prevent God from
accomplishing his work in any other way which he might choose. But she is called
blessed,
because she received by faith the blessing offered to her, and opened up the
way to God for its accomplishment; while faith, on the other hand, shuts the
gate, and restrains his hand from working, that they who refuse the praise due
to its power may not feel its saving effect. We must observe also the relation
between the
word
and
faith,
from which we learn that, in the act of believing, we give our assent to God
who speaks to us, and hold for certain what he has promised to us that he will
do. The phrase, by the
Lord, is of the same import with an
expression in common use, on the
part of God; for the promise had been
brought by the angel, but proceeded from God alone. Hence we infer that, whether
God employs the ministrations of angels or of men, he wishes equal honor to be
paid to his Word as if he were visibly descending from heaven.
LUKE 1:46-50
|
LUKE
1:46-50
|
|
46. And Mary saith, My soul
magnifieth the Lord, 47. And my spirit hath
rejoiced
f29
in God my Savior.
48. Because he hath looked upon the low condition of his
handmaid: for from this time all generations shall call me blessed,
49. Because he who is mighty hath done to me
wonderful
f30
things: and holy is his name.
50. And his mercy is from generation to generation to them
that fear him.
|
Now follows a remarkable and interesting song of
the holy virgin, which plainly shows how eminent were her attainments in the
grace of the Spirit. There are three clauses in this song. First, Mary offers
solemn thanksgiving for that mercy of God which she had experienced in her own
person. Next, she celebrates in general terms God’s power and judgments.
Lastly, she applies these to the matter in hand, treating of the redemption
formerly promised, and now granted to the church.
46. My
soul
magnifieth. Here Mary testifies her
gratitude, as we have already said. But as hypocrites, for the most part, sing
the praises of God with open mouth, unaccompanied by any affection of the heart,
Mary says that she praises God from an inward feeling of the mind. And certainly
they who pronounce his glory, not from the mind, but with the tongue alone, do
nothing more than profane his holy name. The words
soul
and
spirit
are used in Scripture in various senses, but, when employed together, they
denote chiefly two faculties of the soul;
spirit
being taken for the understanding, and
soul
for the seat of the affections. To comprehend the meaning of the holy
virgin, it must be observed that what is here placed second is first in order;
for the excitement of the will of man to praise God must be preceded by a
rejoicing of the
spirit,
f31 as James says, “Is any
merry? let him sing psalms,”
(<590513>James
5:13.) Sadness and anxiety lock up the soul, and restrain the tongue from
celebrating the goodness of God. When the soul of Mary exults with joy, the
heart breaks out in praising God. It is with great propriety, in speaking of the
joy of her heart, that she gives to God the appellation of
Savior.
Till God has been recognised as a
Savior,
the minds of men are not free to indulge in true and full joy, but will
remain in doubt and anxiety. It is God’s fatherly kindness alone, and the
salvation flowing from it, that fill the soul with joy. In a word, the first
thing necessary for believers is, to be able to rejoice that they have their
salvation in God. The next ought to follow, that, having experienced God to be a
kind Father, they may “offer to him thanksgiving,”
(<195014>Psalm
50:14.) The Greek word
swth<r,
Savior,
has a more extensive signification than the Latin word
Servator;
for it means not only that he once delivers, but that he is “the
Author of eternal salvations”
(<580509>Hebrews
5:9.)
48.
Because he hath
looked. She explains the reason why the
joy of her heart was founded in God to be, that out of free grace he had looked
upon her. By calling herself
low
she disclaims all merit, and ascribes to the undeserved goodness of God
every occasion of boasting. For
tapei>nwsiv,
lowness,
does not here denote—as ignorant and uneducated men have foolishly
imagined—”submission, or modesty, or a quality of the mind,”
but signifies
“a
mean and despicable condition.”
f32 The meaning is,
“I
was unknown and despised, but that did not prevent God from deigning to cast
his eyes upon me.” But if Mary’s
lowness
is contrasted with excellence—as the matter itself and the Greek word
make abundantly plain—we see how Mary makes herself nothing, and praises
God alone. And this was not the loud cry of a pretended humility, but the plain
and honest statement of that conviction which was engraven on her mind; for she
was of no account in the eyes of the world, and her estimation of herself was
nothing more.
From this
time. She announces that this kindness
of God will be kept in remembrance throughout
all
generations. But if it is so remarkable,
that it ought to be proclaimed every where by the lips of all men, silence
regarding it would have been highly improper in Mary, on whom it was bestowed.
Now observe, that Mary makes her happiness to consist in nothing else, but in
what she acknowledges to have been bestowed upon her by
God,
and mentions as the gift of his grace. “I shall be
reckoned blessed,” she says, “through all ages.”
Was it because she sought this praise by her own power or exertion? On the
contrary, she makes mention of nothing but of the work of God. Hence we see how
widely the Papists differ from her, who idly adorn her with their empty devices,
and reckon almost as nothing the benefits which she received from
God. f33
They heap up an abundance of magnificent and very presumptuous titles, such
as, “Queen of Heaven, Star of Salvation, Gate of Life,
Sweetness, Hope, and Salvation.” Nay more, to such a pitch of insolence
and fury have they been hurried by Satan, that they give her authority over
Christ;
f34 for this is their pretty song,
“Beseech the Father, Order the
Son.”
f35 None of these modes of expression,
it is evident, proceeded from the Lord. All are disclaimed by the holy virgin in
a single word, when she makes her whole glory to consist in acts of the divine
kindness. If it was her duty to praise the name of God alone, who
had done to her wonderful
things, no room is left for the
pretended titles, which come from another quarter. Besides, nothing could be
more disrespectful to her, than to rob the Son of God of what is his own, to
clothe her with the sacrilegious plunder.
Let Papists now go, and hold us out as doing injury
to the mother of Christ, because we reject the falsehoods of men, and extol in
her nothing more than the kindness of God. Nay, what is most of all honorable to
her we grant, and those absurd worshippers
refuse.
f36 We cheerfully acknowledge her as
our teacher, and obey her instruction and commands. There certainly is no
obscurity in what she says here; but the Papists throw it aside, trample it as
it were under foot, and do all they can to destroy the credit of her
statements
f37 ? Let us remember that, in
praising both men and angels, there is a general rule laid down, to extol in
them the grace of God; as nothing is at all worthy of praise which did not
proceed from Him.
He who is mighty hath done to me
wonderful things. She informs us, that
the reason why God did not in this case employ the assistance of others was, to
make his own power more illustrious. And here we must recall what she formerly
said, that God had looked upon
her, though she was mean and despicable.
Hence it follows, that those praises of Mary are absurd and spurious which do
not altogether exalt the power and free grace of
God.
49. And
holy is his
name. This is the second part of the
song, in which the holy virgin celebrates in general terms the power, judgments,
and mercy of God. This clause must not be viewed as a part of the preceding one,
but must be read separately. Mary had extolled the grace of God, which she had
experienced in her own person. Hence she takes occasion to exclaim, that
holy is his name, and his mercy
endures throughout all generations. The
name of God is called
holy,
because it is entitled to the highest reverence; and whenever the name of
God is mentioned, it ought immediately to remind us of his adorable
majesty.
The next clause, which celebrates the perpetuity of
the Divine mercy, is taken from that solemn form of covenant,
“I
will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in
their generations, for an everlasting
covenant,”
(<011707>Genesis
17:7)
and again,
“who keepeth
covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a
thousand generations,”
(<050709>Deuteronomy
7:9.)
By these words, he not only declares, that he will
always be like himself, but expresses the favor which he continues to manifest
towards his own people after their death, loving their children, and their
children’s children, and all their posterity. Thus he followed the
posterity of Abraham with uninterrupted kindness; for, having once received
their father Abraham into favor, he had made with him “an everlasting
covenant.”
But as not all who are descended from Abraham
according to the flesh are the true children of Abraham, Mary confines the
accomplishment of the promise to the true worshippers of God, to
them that fear
him: as David also
does:
“The mercy of the
Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his
righteousness unto children’s children; to such as keep his covenant, and
to those that remember his commandments to do them,”
(<19A317>Psalm
103:17,18.)
While God promises that he will be merciful to the
children of the saints through all generations, this gives no support to the
vain confidence of hypocrites: for falsely and groundlessly do they boast of God
as their Father, who are the spurious children of the saints, and have departed
from their faith and godliness.
f38 This exception sets aside the
falsehood and arrogance of those who, while they are destitute of faith, are
puffed up with false pretenses to the favor of God. A universal covenant of
salvation had been made by God with the posterity of Abraham; but, as stones
moistened by the rain do not become soft, so the promised righteousness and
salvation are prevented from reaching unbelievers through their own hardness of
heart. Meanwhile, to maintain the truth and firmness of his, promise, God has
preserved “a seed,”
(<450929>Romans
9:29.)
Under the
fear
of the Lord is included the whole of godliness and religion, and this cannot
exist without faith. But here an objection may be urged. What avails it that God
is called merciful, if no man finds him to be so unless he deserves his favor?
For, if the mercy of God is upon
them that fear him, godliness and a good
conscience procure his grace to men, and in this way men go before his grace by
their own merits. I reply, this is a part of his mercy, that he bestows on the
children of the godly fear and reverence for his majesty. This does not point
out the commencement of his grace, as if God were idly looking down from heaven,
to see who are worthy of it. All that is intended is, to shake off the perverse
confidence of hypocrites, that they may not imagine God to be bound to them,
because they are the children of saints according to the flesh: the divine
covenant having another and very different object, that God may have always a
people in the world, by whom he is sincerely worshipped.
LUKE 1:51-55
|
LUKE
1:51-55
|
|
51. He hath done
might
f39
with his arm: he hath scattered the proud in
the thought of their heart. 52. He hath cast down the nobles
from their thrones, and hath exalted mean persons. 53. He
hath filled the hungry with good things, and hath sent the rich away empty.
54. He hath lifed up his servant Israel, so as to be mindful
of his mercy, 55. As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and
to his seed for ever.
|
51.
He hath done
might. This means, “he hath
wrought powerfully.” The
arm
of God is contrasted with every other aid: as in Isaiah, “I
looked, and there was none to help,”
(<236305>Isaiah
63:5;)
“therefore,”
says he elsewhere,
“his arm brought
salvation unto him;
and his
righteousness, it sustained him,”
(<235916>Isaiah
59:16.)
Mary therefore means: God rested satisfied with his
own power, employed no companions in the work, called none to afford him aid.
What immediately follows about
the
proud may be supposed to be added for
one of two reasons: either because
the
proud gain nothing by endeavoring, like
the giants of old, to oppose God; or, because God does not display the power of
his arm for salvation, except in the case of the
humble,
while the
proud, who arrogate much to themselves,
are thrown
down. To this relates the exhortation of
Peter,
“Humble yourselves
under the mighty hand of
God,”
(<600506>1
Peter 5:6.)
He hath
scattered
f40
the proud in the thought of
their
heart.
f41 This expression is worthy of
notice: for as their pride and ambition are outrageous, as their covetousness is
insatiable, they pile up their deliberations to form an immense heap, and, to
say all in a single word, they build the tower of Babel,
(<011109>Genesis
11:9.) Not satisfied with having made one or another foolish attempt beyond
their strength, or with their former schemes of mad presumption, they still add
to their amount. When God has for a time looked down from heaven, in silent
mockery, on their splendid preparations, he unexpectedly scatters the whole
mass: just as when a building is overturned, and its parts, which had formerly
been bound together by a strong and firm union, are widely scattered in every
direction.
52.
He hath cast down the
nobles. This translation has been
adopted, for the sake of avoiding ambiguity: for though the Greek word
duna>stai
is derived from
du>namiv,
power,
it denotes governors and eminent rulers.
f42 Many persons think that
duna>stav
is a participle. They are said by Mary to be
cast down from their
thrones, that obscure and unknown
persons may be elevated in their room; and so she ascribes to the providence and
judgments of God what ungodly men can the game of
Fortune.
f43 Let us understand, that she does
not ascribe to God a despotic power,—as if men were tossed and thrown up
and down like balls by a tyrannical authority,—but a just government,
founded on the best reasons, though they frequently escape our notice. God does
not delight in changes, or elevate in mockery to a lofty station, those whom he
has determined immediately to throw down.
f44 It is rather the depravity of men
that overturns the state of things, because nobody acknowledges that the
disposal of every one is placed in His will and power.
Those who occupy a higher station than others are not
only chargeable with disdainfully and cruelly insulting their neighbors, but act
in a daring manner towards Him to whom they owe their elevation. To instruct us
by facts, that whatever is lofty and elevated in the world is subject to God,
and that the whole world is governed by his dominion, some are exalted to high
honor, while others either come down in a gradual manner, or else fall headlong
from their thrones. Such is the cause and object of the changes which is
assigned by David, “He poureth contempt upon princes,”
(<19A739>Psalm
107:39;) and by Daniel,
“He changeth the
times and the seasons:
he removeth
kings, and setteth up kings,”
(<270221>Daniel
2:21.)
We see, indeed, how the princes of the world grow
extravagantly insolent, indulge in luxury, swell with pride, and are intoxicated
with the sweets of prosperity. If the Lord cannot tolerate such ingratitude, we
need not be surprised.
The usual consequence is, that those whom God has
raised to a high estate do not occupy it long. Again, the dazzling luster of
kings and princes so overpowers the multitude, that there are few who consider
that there is a God above. But if princes brought a scepter with them from the
womb, and if the stability of their thrones were perpetual, all acknowledgment
of God and of his providence would immediately disappear. When the Lord raises
mean persons to exalted rank, he triumphs over the pride of the world, and at
the same time encourages simplicity and modesty in his own
people.
Thus, when Mary says, that it is God who
casteth down nobles from their
thrones, and exalteth mean persons, she
teaches us, that the world does not move and revolve by a blind impulse of
Fortune, but that all the revolutions observed in it are brought about by the
Providence of God, and that those judgments, which appear to us to disturb and
overthrow the entire framework of soclety, are regulated by God with unerring
justice. This is confirmed by the following verse,
He hath filled the hungry with
good things, and hath sent the rich away
empty: for hence we infer that it is not
in themselves, but for a good reason, that God takes pleasure in these changes.
It is because the great, and rich, and powerful, lifted up by their abundance,
ascribe all the praise to themselves, and leave nothing to God. We ought
therefore to be scrupulously on our guard against being carried away by
prosperity, and against a vain satisfaction of the flesh, lest God suddenly
deprive us of what we enjoy. To such godly persons as feel poverty and almost
famine, and lift up their cry to God, no small consolation is afforded by this
doctrine, that he filleth the
hungry with good
things.
54.
He hath lifted up his servant
Israel. In this last clause the general
statements are applied by Mary to the present occasion. The meaning is, God has
now granted the salvation which he had formerly promised to the holy fathers.
And first, the verb
ajntilamza>nesqai,
to lift
up, contains an elegant
metaphor:
f45 for the state of the nation was so
fallen, that its entire restoration could not be expected on ordinary
principles. And then God is said to have
lifted up
Israel, because he stretched out his
hand, and lifted him up when lying prostrate. Religion had been polluted in
innumerable ways. The public instruction retained almost nothing pure. The
government of the Church was in the greatest confusion, and breathed nothing but
shocking barbarity. The order of civil society no longer subsisted. The great
body of the people were torn like wild beasts by the Romans and Herod. So much
the more glorious was the restoration, which a state of affairs so desperate did
not allow them to expect.
Paido<v
may here be taken either for
child
or for
servant:
but the latter signification is more appropriate.
Israel
is called, in this as in many other places, the
servant
of God, because he had been received into the family of
God.
So as to be
mindful. Mary assigns the reason why the
nation, when verging to ruin, was received by God; or rather, why God lifted it
up when already fallen. It was to give an illustration of his
mercy
in its preservation. She expressly mentions that God had
remembered
his mercy, which he might appear in some sort to have forgotten, when he
permitted his people to be so fearfully distressed and afflicted. It is
customary to ascribe affections to God, as men conclude from the event itself,
that he is offended with them, or that he is reconciled. Now, as the human mind
forms no conception of the divine mercy, except so far as it is presented and
declared in his own word, Mary directs her own attention and that of others to
the promises,
f46 and shows that, in the
accomplishment of them, God has been true and faithful. In this sense, Scripture
makes frequent mention of God’s mercy and truth,
(<330720>Micah
7:20;) because we shall never be convinced of his fatherly kindness toward us,
unless his word, by which he hath bound himself to us, be present to our
recollection, and unless it occupy, as it were, an interterm is here, as at
<442035>Acts
20:35, and often in the classical writers, used metaphorically in the sense of
to protect, support.”—Bloomfield. mediate position between us, to
link the goodness of God with our own individual salvation. By these words
Mary
shows, that the covenant which God had made with the fathers was of free
grace; for she traces the salvation promised in it to the fountain of unmixed
mercy.
Hence too we infer, that she was well acquainted with the doctrine of
Scripture. The expectation of the Messiah was at that time, indeed, very
general, but few had their faith established on so pure a knowledge of
Scripture.
55.
To Abraham and to his
seed. If you read these words in close
connection with the close of the former verse, there appears to be an improper
change of the case. Instead of tw~
jAbraa<m kai< tw~ spe>rmati, it ought to
have been
(pro<v)to<n
jAbraa<m kai< to< spe>rma,,
as he spake
TO
our
fathers, TO
Abraham
and TO
his
seed.
f47 But, in my opinion, there is no
such close connection. Mary does not merely explain who the Fathers were to whom
God spake, but extends the power and result of the promises to all his
posterity, provided they are the true seed of Abraham. Hence it follows, that
the matter now in hand is, the solemn covenant which had been made, in a
peculiar manner, with Abraham and his descendants. For other promises, which had
been given to Adam, and Noah, and others, referred indiscriminately to all
nations. As many of the children of Abraham, according to the flesh, have been
cut off by their unbelief, and have been thrown out as degenerate from the
family of Abraham, so we, who were strangers, are admitted to it by faith, and
regarded as the true seed of Abraham. Let us therefore hold that, in consequence
of God having formerly spoken to
the fathers, the grace offered to them
belongs equally to their posterity; and also, that the adoption has been
extended to all nations, so that those, who were not by nature children of
Abraham, may be his spiritual
seed.
LUKE 1:56-66
|
LUKE
1:56-66
|
|
56. And Mary abode with her about
three months, and returned to her own house. 57. And
Elisabeth's time of bringing forth was fulfilled, and she brought forth a son.
58. And her neighbors and relatives heard, that the Lord had
wonderfully exercised his mercy toward her, and they congratulated her.
59. And it happened on the eighth day, when they came to
circumcise the child, and they called him Zacharias, by the name of his father.
60. And his mother answering
said,
f48
By no means, but he shall be called John.
61. And they said to her, There is none among thy kindred who
is called by that name. 62. And they made signs to his father
how he wished him to be called. 63. And having asked for
writing tables, he wrote, saying, John is his name: and all wondered.
64. And his mouth was instantly opened, and he spake,
blessing God. 65. And fear fell upon all their neighbors, and
in all the mountainous district of Judea all these words were made known.
66. And all who had heard put them in their heart, saying,
What (or Who) shall this child be? And the hand of the Lord was with
him.
|
The amount of this narrative is, that the birth
of John was distinguished by various miracles, which gave reason to expect, that
something great and remarkable would appear in the child himself at a future
period. For the Lord determined to confer upon him from the womb remarkable
tokens, that he might not afterwards come forward, as an obscure and unknown
person, from the crowd, to discharge the office of a Prophet. First Luke
relates, that Mary remained about three months with her cousin,—or, in
other words, till the birth of the child: for it is probable that she had no
other reason for staying so long, but to enjoy the exhibition of divine grace,
which had been suggested to her by the angel for the confirmation of her
faith.
58.
And her neighbors and
relatives heard. It may admit of doubt,
whether the wonderful kindness of God was estimated by those persons from the
simple fact of her being blessed with a child, or whether they had previously
heard that an angel appeared to Zacharias, and promised to him a son. This was
certainly no ordinary divine favor, that, out of the course of nature, a barren
woman at a very advanced age had brought forth a child. It is possible that, on
this ground alone, they magnified the divine goodness. On the eighth day, from a
sense of duty or from courtesy, as is customary on such occasions, some people
assemble; but God takes occasion from it to make them witnesses and spectators
of his power and glory. There can be no doubt but the extraordinary birth
brought a greater crowd. They had reckoned it a prodigy to see an old and barren
woman suddenly become pregnant; and now that the child is born, their
astonishment is renewed and increased. We infer from the words of Luke that,
though they circumcised their children at home, they were not wont to do so
without collecting a numerous assembly: and with good reason, for it was a
common sacrament of the church, and it was not proper to administer it in a
secret or private manner.
59.
And they called him
Zacharias, by the name of his father. We
know that names were originally given to men, either from some occurrence, or
even by prophetic inspiration, to point out some secret work of God. After a
long period, when there was such a profusion of names, that it became
inconvenient to form new ones every day, people satisfied themselves with the
old and received names, and called their children by the names of their
ancestors. Thus before the father of John, there were many called Zacharias, and
perhaps they were the descendants of the
“son of
Barachias,”
(<402335>Matthew
23:35.) Use and wont, we are aware, is generally taken for law, and so these
persons contended that the prevailing custom should be observed as to the name
of the child. Though we must not imagine that there is any sacredness in names,
yet no judicious person will deny that, in this matter, believers ought to make
a godly and profitable selection. They ought to give their children such names
as may serve to instruct and admonish them, and consequently to take the names
of holy fathers—for the purpose of exciting their children to imitate
them—rather than adopt those of ungodly
persons.
60.
And his mother answering
said. It is uncertain if Elisabeth spoke
this by inspiration. But when Zacharias saw the punishment inflicted on him for
being too slow in believing, he probably informed his wife by writing what the
angel had enjoined respecting the name, (ver. 13:) otherwise he would not have
obeyed the command of God. Why this name was given to the Baptist by divine
authority, I have already explained. The relatives, though unacquainted with the
reason, are affected by the strangeness of the occurrence, particularly as they
conjecture it did not take place without
design.
64.
And his mouth was instantly
opened. God puts honor on the birth of
his prophet by restoring speech to his father: for there can be no doubt that
this benefit was delayed till that day with the express object and design of
fixing the eyes of men upon John. Zacharias
spake, blessing
God. He did so, not only for the purpose
of testifying his gratitude, but to inform his relatives and neighbors, that
this punishment had been inflicted on him, because he had been too slow to
believe: for he was not ashamed to unite with his own dishonor the praises of
the divine glory. Thus it became universally known, that the birth of the child
was not an accidental or ordinary event, but had been promised by an
announcement from heaven.
f49
65.
And fear fell upon
all. This fear mentioned by Luke
proceeded from a feeling of the divine power: for the works of God ought to be
contemplated by us with such reverence as to affect our minds with
seriousness.
f50 God does not amuse us with his
miracles, but arouses the senses of men, which he perceives to be in a dormant
state.
f51 Luke says also that the report of
those things was circulated in
all the mountainous district of Judea.
And yet many derived no advantage from the temporary impression of the power
of God: for, when John began to exercise his office as an instructor, there were
few that remembered what wonders had attended his birth. It was not merely,
however, for the sake of those who heard them, that God determined to spread
abroad the report of those events, but to establish, in all ages, the certainty
of the miracle, which was then universally known. Meanwhile, a general mirror of
human ingratitude is here placed before our eyes: for, while trifling and
frivolous occurrences remain firmly in our minds, those which ought to produce a
constant recollection of divine favors immediately fade and
disappear.
Luke does not speak of stupid men, or actual
despisers of God: for he says that they
put them in their
heart: that is, they applied eagerly to
the consideration of them. Some probably continued to remember, but the greater
part rapidly shook off the fear which they had experienced. It deserves our
notice that they were far from mistaking the design, when they interpreted the
miracles which they saw as relating to the future excellence of the child: for
such, we have said, was the design of God, that John should afterwards come
forth with the highest reputation.
And the hand of the Lord was with
him. The meaning is, that the grace of
God was strikingly visible in many respects, and showed manifestly that he was
not an ordinary person. It is a figurative mode of expression, and denotes that
the power of God was as fully manifested as if his hand had been visibly seen,
so that all readily acknowledged the presence of God.
LUKE 1:67-75
|
LUKE
1:67-75
|
|
67. And Zacharias his father was
filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying:
68. Blessed be the Lord God of israel, because he hath
visited, and hath brought redemption to his people: 69. And
he hath raised up the horn
f52
of salvation to us in the house of his servant
David, (70. As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets,
who have been from every age,
f53
) 71. Salvation from our
enemies, and from the hand of all who hated us: 72. To
perform the mercy to our fathers, and to have remembrance of his holy covenant,
73. According to the oath,
f54
which he sware to Abraham our father, to give
to us, 74. That, being delivered out of the hand of our
enemies, we may serve him without fear, 75. In holiness and
righteousness before him all the days of our life.
|
67.
Zacharias was filled with the
Holy Ghost. We have lately explained
this phrase to mean, that the servants of God received more abundantly the grace
of the Spirit, of which, at other times, they were not destitute. Thus we read,
that the Spirit was given to the prophets: not that on other occasions they
wanted it, but that the power of the Spirit was more fully exerted in them, when
the hand of God, as it were, brought them into public view, for the discharge of
their office. We must observe, therefore, the manner in which Luke connects the
two clauses: he was filled with
the Holy Ghost, and prophesied. This
implies that divine inspiration, at that time, rested upon him in an
extraordinary measure, in consequence of which he did not speak like a man or
private person, but all that he uttered was heavenly instruction. Thus also Paul
connects prophecy with the Spirit.
“Quench not the
Spirit: despise not
prophesyings,”
(<520519>1
Thessalonians 5:19, 20.)
which teaches us that to despise instruction is to
“quench”
the light of “the Spirit.” This was a remarkable instance
of the goodness of God, that not only did Zacharias recover the power of speech,
which he had not enjoyed for nine months, but his tongue became the organ of the
Holy Spirit.
68.
Blessed be the Lord
God. Zacharias commences with
thanksgiving, and in the raptures of the prophetic spirit describes the
fulfillment of the redemption formerly promised in Christ, on which the safety
and prosperity of the church depended. The reason why
the
Lord, to whose government the whole
world is subject, is here called
the God of
Israel, will more fully appear from what
follows, that to the seed of Abraham, in a peculiar manner, the Redeemer had
been promised. Since, therefore, God had deposited with one nation only his
covenant, of which Zacharias was about to speak, he properly mentions the name
of that nation, for which the grace of salvation was especially, or at all
events in the first instance, designed.
The word
ejpeske>yato,
he hath
visited, contains an implied contrast:
for the face of God had been turned away for a time from the unhappy children of
Abraham. To such a depth of calamity had they sunk, and with such a mass of
distresses were they overwhelmed, that no one entertained the thought that the
eye of God was upon them. This visitation of God, which Zacharias mentions, is
declared to be the cause and origin of redemption. The statement may be resolved
in this manner. God looked
upon
(ejpeske>yato)
his people, that he might
redeem them. Now, as those whom God
redeems must be prisoners, and as this redemption is spiritual in its nature, we
conclude from this passage, that even the holy fathers were made free from the
yoke of sin and the tyranny of death, only through the grace of Christ; for it
is said that Christ was sent as a Redeemer to the holy and elect people of God.
But it will be objected, if redemption was brought by Christ at that time when
he appeared clothed in flesh, it follows, that those believers who died before
he came into the world were “all their lifetime” slaves of sin and
death: which would be highly absurd. I reply, the power and efficacy of that
redemption, which was once exhibited in Christ, have been the same in all
ages.
69.
He hath raised up the horn of
salvation. That is, saving
power:
f55 for, when the throne of David was
cast down, and the people scattered, the hope of salvation had to all appearance
perished. Zacharias alludes to the predictions of the prophets, which hold out
that a sudden revival would take place, when the state of affairs should have
become melancholy and desperate. This mode of expression is borrowed from the
passage,
“There will I make
the horn of David to bud: I have ordained a lamp for mine anointed,”
(<19D217>Psalm
132:17.)
But if it is only in Christ that God has put forth
his power to save us, we are not at liberty to depart from that method,
if we desire to obtain salvation from God. Let it be also observed, that this
horn
brings
salvation
to believers, but terror to the ungodly, whom it scatters, or bruises and
lays prostrate.
Of his servant
David. He is so denominated, not only
because, like any one of the godly, he worshipped God, but for this other
reason, that he was his chosen servant to rule and save his people, and thus to
represent, along with his successors, the person and office of Christ. Though
there remained among the Jews, at that time, no trace of a kingdom, Zacharias,
resting on the promises of God, does not hesitate to call David the
servant
of God, in whom God gave an example of the salvation which was to
come. f56
Now that the throne of Christ is erected amongst us, that thence he may
govern us, it follows that he is actually appointed to us the author of
salvation.
70.
As he
spake. That the salvation which is said
to have been brought by Christ may not be thought doubtful on the score of
novelty, he adduces as witnesses all the
Prophets,
who, though they were raised up at different times, yet with one consent
teach, that salvation is to be expected from Christ alone. Nor was it the sole
design of Zacharias to celebrate the truth and faithfulness of God, in
performing and fulfilling what he formerly promised. His object rather was to
draw the attention of believers to the ancient predictions, that they might
embrace, with greater certainty and cheerfulness, the salvation offered to them,
of which the Prophets from the beginning had testified. When Christ comes forth
adorned,
f57 with the testimonies of all the
Prophets, our faith in him rests on a truly solid foundation.
He calls them
holy
prophets, to secure for their words
greater authority and reverence. They were not inconsiderable or ordinary
witnesses, but were of the first rank,
f58 and furnished with a public
commission, having been separated from the common people, for that purpose, by
divine authority. To inquire minutely how each of the prophets gave testimony to
Christ, would lead us into a long dissertation. Let it suffice for the present
to say, that they all uniformly make the hope of the people, that God would be
gracious to them, to rest entirely on that covenant between God and them which
was founded on Christ, and thus speak plainly enough of the future redemption,
which was manifested in Christ. To this purpose are many striking passages,
which contain no dark prophecies respecting Christ, but point him out, as it
were, with the finger. But our chief attention is due to the signature of the
divine covenant; for he that neglects this will never understand any thing in
the prophets: as the Jews wander wretchedly
f59 in reading the Scripture, in
consequence of giving their whole study to words, and wandering from the main
design.
71.
Salvation from our
enemies. Zacharias explains more clearly
the power and office of Christ. And certainly it would be of little or no
advantage to learn that Christ was given to us, unless we also knew what he
bestows. For this reason he states more fully the purpose for which the
horn of
salvation was
raised
up: that believers may obtain
salvation from their
enemies. Unquestionably, Zacharias was
well aware, that the principal war of the church of God is not with flesh and
blood, but with Satan and all his armament, by which he labors to accomplish our
everlasting ruin. Though the Church is also attacked by outward foes, and is
delivered from them by Christ, yet, as the kingdom of Christ is spiritual, it is
chiefly to Satan, the prince of this world, and all his legions, that the
present discourse relates. Our attention is also directed to the miserable
condition of men out of Christ, lying prostrate under the tyranny of the devil:
otherwise, out of his hand, out of his power, Christ would not deliver his own
people. This passage reminds us that, so long as the Church continues her
pilgrimage in the world, she lives amongst her foes, and would be exposed to
their violence, if Christ were not always at hand to grant assistance. But such
is the inestimable grace of Christ, that, though we are surrounded on every side
by enemies, we enjoy a sure and undoubted salvation. The mode of expression may
seem harsh, salvation from our
enemies; but the meaning is obvious. No
machinations or power, no wiles, no attacks will prevent our being delivered
from them and saved “in the Lord with an everlasting
salvatlon,”
(<234517>Isaiah
45:17.)
72.
To perform the
mercy. Zacharias again points out the
fountain from which redemption flowed, the
mercy
and gracious
covenant
of God. He assigns the reason why God was pleased to save his people. It was
because, being mindful of his promise, he displayed his mercy. He is said to
have remembrance of his
covenant, because there might be some
appearance of forgetfulness during that long delay, in which he allowed his
people to languish under the weight of very heavy calamities. We must carefully
attend to this order. First, God was moved by pure mercy to make a covenant with
the fathers. Secondly, He has linked the salvation of men with his own
word. f60
Thirdly, He has exhibited in Christ every blessing, so as to ratify all his
promises: as, indeed, their truth is only confirmed to us when we see their
fulfillment in Christ. Forgiveness of sins is promised in the covenant, but it
is in the blood of Christ. Righteousness is promised, but it is offered through
the atonement of Christ. Life is promised, but it must be sought only in the
death and resurrection of Christ. This too is the reason why God commanded of
old, that the book of the law should be sprinkled with the blood of the
sacrifice,
(<022408>Exodus
24:8;
<580919>Hebrews
9:19, 20.) It is also worthy of notice, that Zacharias speaks of the mercy
performed
in his own age, as extending to the fathers who were dead, and who equally
shared in its results. Hence it follows, that the grace and power of Christ are
not confined by the narrow limits of this fading life, but are everlasting; that
they are not terminated by the death of the flesh, for the soul survives the
death of the body, and the destruction of the flesh is followed by the
resurrection. As neither Abraham, nor any of the saints, could procure salvation
to himself by his own power or merits, so to all believers, whether living or
dead, the same salvation has been exhibited in
Christ.
73.
According to the
oath. There is no word in the Greek
original for the preposition
according
to: but it is a common and well
understood principle of language, that when the accusative case is put
absolutely, there is a preposition to be understood, by which it is governed.
The
oath is mentioned, for the purpose of
expressing more fully the firmness and sacredness of his truth: for such is his
gracious condescension, that he deigns to employ his name for the support of our
weakness. If his bare promises do not satisfy us, let us at least remember this
confirmation of them; and if it does not remove all doubt, we are chargeable
with heinous ingratitude to God, and insult to his holy name.
To give to
us. Zacharias does not enumerate the
several points of God’s covenant, but shows that God’s purpose, in
dealing so kindly and mercifully with his people, was to redeem
them.
74.
That being delivered out of
the hand of our enemies. His purpose
was, that, being redeemed, they might dedicate and consecrate themselves
entirely to the Author of their salvation. As the efficient cause of human
salvation was the undeserved goodness of God, so its final cause is, that, by a
godly and holy life, men may glorify his name. This deserves careful attention,
that we may remember our calling, and so learn to apply the grace of God to its
proper use. We must meditate on such declarations as these:
“God hath
not called us unto uncleanness, but unto
holiness,”
(<520407>1
Thessalonians 4:7.)
We are “redeemed with a great price,”
(<460620>1
Corinthians 6:20,) “the precious blood of Christ,”
(<600118>1
Peter 1:18,19,) not that we may serve “the lusts of the flesh,”
(<610218>2
Peter 2:18,) or indulge in unbridled licentiousness, but that Christ may reign
in us. We are admitted by adoption into the family of God, that we, on our part,
may yield obedience as children to a father. For “the kindness and
love
(filanqrwpi>a)
of God our Savior toward man,”
(<560304>Titus
3:4,) “hath appeared unto all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness
and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly,”
(<560211>Titus
2:11,12.) And so Paul, when he wishes powerfully to exhort believers to
consecrate themselves to God, “in newness of life,”
(<450604>Romans
6:4,) and, “putting off, concerning the former conversation, the old
man,”
(<490422>Ephesians
4:22,) to render to him a “reasonable service,” “beseeches
them by the mercies of God,”
(<451201>Romans
12:1.) Scripture is full of declarations of this nature, which show that we
“frustrate the grace”
(<480221>Galatians
2:21) of Christ, if we do not follow out this design.
That we may serve him without
fear. This deserves our attention: for
it implies that we cannot worship God in a proper manner without composure of
mind. Those who are ill at ease, who have an inward struggle, whether God is
favorable or hostile to them, whether he accepts or rejects their
services,—in a word, who fluctuate in uncertainty between hope and fear,
will sometimes labor anxiously in the worship of God, but never will sincerely
or honestly obey him. Alarm and dread make them turn from him with horror; and
so, if it were possible, they would desire that there were, “no
God,”
(<191401>Psalm
14:1.) But we know, that no sacrifice is acceptable to God, which is not offered
willingly, and with a cheerful heart. Before men can truly worship
God,
they must obtain peace of conscience, as David speaks, “There is
forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared,”
(<19D004>Psalm
130:4:) for those to whom God has given peace are graciously invited and led to
approach him willingly and with a cheerful desire to worship him. Hence too Paul
deduces that maxim, that “whatsoever is undertaken without faith is
sin,”
(<451423>Romans
14:23.) But since God reconciles men to himself in Christ, since by his
protection he keeps them safe from all fear, since he has committed their
salvation to his own hand and guardianship, we are justly declared by Zacharias
to be delivered by his grace from fear. And so the prophets describe it as
peculiar to his reign, that,
“they shall sit
every man under his vine, and under his fig-tree, and none shall make them
afraid,”
(<330404>Micah
4:4.)
75.
In holiness and
righteousness. As the rule of a good
life has been reduced by God to two tables,
(<023118>Exodus
31:18; 34:1,) so Zacharias here declares, that we serve God in a proper manner,
when our life has been framed to
holiness and righteousness.
Holiness, beyond all question,
denotes—as even Plato knew the duties of
godliness,
f61 which relate to the first table of
the law.
Righteousness,
again, extends to all the duties of charity: for God requires nothing more
from us in the second table of the law, than to render to every one what belongs
to him. It is added, before
him, to instruct believers, that it is
not enough if their lives are decently regulated before the eyes of men, and
their hands, and feet, and whole body, restrained from every kind of open
wickedness: but they must live according to the will of God, who is not
satisfied with professions of holiness, but looks chiefly on the
heart.
Lastly, That no man may consider his duties to be at
an end, when he has worshipped God for a certain period, Zacharias declares that
men have been redeemed on the condition
f62 that they shall continue to devote
themselves to the worship of God
all the days
of their
life.
And certainly, as redemption is eternal, the remembrance of it ought never
to pass away; as God adopts men into his family for ever, their gratitude ought
not to be transitory or of short continuance; and, in a word, as “Christ
both died and rose, and revived” for them, it is proper that he should be
“Lord both of the dead and living,”
(<451409>Romans
14:9.) So Paul, in a passage which I lately quoted, enjoins us
to
“live soberly,
righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for that blessed hope,
and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ; who
gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto
himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works,”
(<560212>Titus
2:12-14.)
LUKE 1:76-80
|
LUKE
1:76-80
|
|
76. And thou, child, shalt be
called the Prophet of the Highest. for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord
to prepare his ways, 77. To give knowledge of salvation to
his people by the forgiveness of their sins: 78. Through the
bowels of the mercy of our God, by which the Eastern
sky
f63
hath visited us, 79. That he
might give light to those who were sitting in darkness and the shadow of death,
to guide our feet into the way of peace. 80. And the child
grew, and became strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his
showing unto Israel.
|
76.
And thou,
child. Zacharias again returns to
commend the grace of Christ, but does this, as it were, in the person of his
son, by describing briefly the office to which he had been appointed as an
instructor. Though in a little infant eight days old he does not yet observe
prophetical endowments, yet turning his eyes to the purpose of God, he speaks of
it as a thing already known. To
be called means here to be
considered and openly
acknowledged as the prophet of God. A
secret calling of God had already taken place. It only remained that the nature
of that calling should be manifested to men. But as the name
Prophet
is general, Zacharias, following the revelation brought to him by the angel,
affirms that he would be the usher
f64 or herald of Christ. He says,
thou shalt go before the face of
the Lord: that is, thou shalt discharge
the office of turning men by thy preaching to hear the Lord. The reason why
John, when he had nearly finished his course, affirmed that he was not a
prophet
of God, is explained by me at the proper place,
(<430121>John
1:21,) and in what manner he was
to prepare his
ways we shall afterwards
see.
77.
To give knowledge of
salvation. Zacharias now touches the
principal subject of the gospel, when he says that the
knowledge of
salvation consists in
the forgiveness of
sins. As we are all “by nature the
children of wraths”
(<490203>Ephesians
2:3,) it follows, that we are by nature condemned and ruined: and the ground of
our condemnation is, that we are chargeable with unrighteousness. There is,
therefore, no other provision for escaping eternal
death f65
but by God
“reconciling us
unto himself, not imputing our trespasses unto
us,”
(<470519>2
Corinthians 5:19.)
That this is the only righteousness which remains to
us before God, may be easily gathered from the words of Zacharias. For whence
comes salvation, but from righteousness? But if the children of God have no
other way of obtaining the
knowledge of
salvation except
through the forgiveness of
sins, it follows, that righteousness
must not be sought in any other quarter. Proud men attempt to forge and
manufacture a righteousness out of the merits of good works. True righteousness
is nothing else than the imputation of righteousness, when God, out of free
grace, acquits us from guilt. Besides, it ought to be observed that Zacharias is
not speaking of “strangers from the covenants of
promise,”
(<490212>Ephesians
2:12) but of the people of God. Hence it follows, that not only does the
commencement of righteousness depend on the
forgiveness of
sins, but it is by
imputation
f66 that believers are righteous
before God to the very end: for they cannot appear before his tribunal in any
other way than by betaking themselves daily to a free
reconciliation.
78.
Through the
bowels
f67
of
mercy. In so great a benefit Zacharias
justly extols the mercy of God, and not satisfied with merely calling it the
salvation which was brought by Christ, he employs more emphatic language, and
says that it proceeded from the very
bowels of the
mercy of God. He then tells us
metaphorically, that the great mercy of God has made the day to
give light to those who were
sitting in darkness. Oriens, in the
Latin version of this passage, is not a participle: for the Greek word is
ajnatolh>,
that is, the Eastern region, as contrasted with the West. Zacharias extols
the
mercy
of God, as manifested in dispelling the darkness of death, and restoring to
the people of God the light of life. In this way, whenever our salvation is the
subject, we ought to raise our minds to the contemplation of the divine mercy.
There appears to be an allusion to a prediction of Malachi, in which Christ is
called “the Sun of Righteousness,” and is said to “arise with
healing in his wing,”
(<390402>Malachi
4:2,) that is, to bring health in his
rays.
79.
That he might give light to
those who were sitting in darkness. As
to
light
and
darkness,
there are similar modes of expression in Isaiah: such as,
“The people that
walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the
shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined,”
(<230901>Isaiah
9:1;)
and in many other passages. These words show, that
out of Christ there is no life-giving light in the world, but every thing is
covered by the appalling darkness of death. Thus, in another passage, Isaiah
testifies that this privilege belongs peculiarly to the church
alone.
“Behold, the
darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord
shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee,”
(<236002>Isaiah
60:2.)
But how could it be said that the Israelites, on
whose hearts the Lord always shone by faith,
were sitting in the shadow of
death? I reply, the godly, who lived
under the law were surrounded on every side by the darkness of death, and beheld
at a distance, in the coming of Christ, the light that cheered and preserved
them from being overwhelmed by present death. Zacharias may have had in view the
wretched condition of his own age. But it is a general truth, that on all the
godly, who had ever lived, or who were afterwards to live, there arose in the
coming of Christ a light to impart life: for it even diffused life over the
dead. To
sit
is of the same import as to
lie:
f68 and so Isaiah enjoins the Church,
“Arise, for thy light is come,”
(<236001>Isaiah
60:1.)
To guide our
feet. By this expression Zacharias
points out, that the highest perfection of all excellence and happiness is to be
found in Christ alone. The word
Peace
might indeed be taken in its literal sense, which would not be unsuitable:
for the illumination brought by Christ tends to pacify the minds of men. But as
the Hebrew word
µwlç,
peace,
denotes every kind of prosperity, Zacharias intended, I doubt not, to
represent Christ as the author of perfect blessedness, that we may not seek the
smallest portion of happiness elsewhere, but may rest on Christ alone, from a
full conviction that in him we are entirely and completely happy. To this
purpose are those words of Isaiah,
“The sun
shall be no more thy light by day, neither for brightness shall the moon give
light unto thee: but the Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy
God thy glory,”
(<236019>Isaiah
60:19.)
But if the mere sight of his Son, while still a
child, led Zacharias to discourse in so lofty a strain respecting the grace and
power of Christ, before he was born, are not they so much the more ungrateful,
who, now that Christ has died, and risen, and ascended to heaven, and sat down
at his Father’s right hand, speak disrespectfully of him and of his power,
to which the Holy Spirit bore testimony, while he was still in his
mother’s womb? We must bear in mind what I have already mentioned, that
Zacharias spake not from himself, but that the Spirit of God directed his
tongue.
And the child
grew. This is added by Luke for
continuing the thread of the history.
First,
he mentions that John became
strong in spirit: which implies that the
great and uncommon excellence of the child gave proof that there dwelt in him a
Heavenly Spirit. Next, he tells us, that John remained unknown in the deserts
till the day of his
showing, that is, till the day on which
the Lord had pur-posed to bring him into public view. Hence we conclude, that
John, though he was fully aware of his calling, made no advances before the
appointed time, but awaited the call of God.
MATTHEW 1:1-17; LUKE
3:23-38
|
MATTHEW
1:1-17
|
LUKE
3:23-38
|
|
1. The book of the generation of
Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. 2. And
Abraham began Isaac. And Issac begat Jacob. And Jacob begat Judah and his
brethren. 3. And Judah begat Pharez and Zarah by Tamar. And
Pharez begat Hezron. and Hezron begat Ram. 4. And Ram begat
Amminadab. And Amminadab begat Nahshon. And Nahshon begat Salma.
5. And Salma begat Boaz by Rahab. And Boaz begat Obed by
Ruth. And Obed begat Jesse. 6. And Jesse begat David the
king. And David the king begat Solomon by her who had been the wife of Uriah.
7. And Solomon begat Rehoboam. And Rehoboam begat Abijah. And
Abijah begat Asa. 8. And Asa begat Jehoshaphat. And
Jehoshaphat begat Jorem. And Joram begat Uzziah. 9. And
Uzziah begat Jotham. And Jotham begat Ahaz. And Ahaz begat Hezekiah.
10. And Hezekiah begat Manasseh. And Manasseh begat Amon. And
Amon begat Josiah. 11. And Josiah begat Jeconiah and his
brethren, about the Babylonish exile. 12. And after the
Babylonish exile, Jeconiah begat Salathiel. And Salathiel begat Zerubbabel.
13. And Zerubbabel begat Abiud. And Abiud begat Eliakim. And
Eliakim begat Azor. 14. And Azor begat Zadok. And Zadok begat
Achim. And Achim begat Eliud. 15. And Eliud begat Eleazar.
And Eleazar begat Matthan. And Matthan begat Jacob. 16. And
Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called
Christ. 17. Therefore all the generations from Abraham till
David are fourteen generations; and from David till the Babylonish migration are
fourteen generations; and from the Babylonish migration till Christ are fourteen
generations.
|
23. Jesus was supposed to be the
son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli, 24. Who was the son
of Matthat, who was the son of Levi, who was the son of Melchi, who was the son
of Janna, who was the son of Joseph, 25. Who was the son of
Matthias, who was the son of Amos, who was the son of Nahum, who was the son of
Esli, who was the son of Nagge, 26. Who was the son of Maath,
who was the son of Mattahtias, who was the son of Semei, who was the son of
Joseph, who was the son of Judah, 27. Who was the son of
Joanna, who was the son of Rhesa, who was the son of Zerubbabel, who was the son
of Salathiel, who was the son of Neri, 28. Who was the son of
Melchi, who was the son of Addi, who was the son of Cosam, who was the son of
Elmodam, who was the son, of Er, 29. Who was the son of of
Joses, who was the son of Eliezer, who was the son of Joriam, who was the son of
Matthat, who was the son of Levi, 30. Who was the son of
Simeon, who was the son of Judah, who was the son of Joseph, who was the son of
Jonan, who was the son of Eliakim, 31. Who was the son of
Meleah, who was the son of Mainan, who was the son of Mattatha, who was the son
of Nathan, who was the son of David, 32. Who was the son of
Jesse, who was the son of Obed, who was the son of Boaz, who was the son of
Salmah, who was the son of Nahshon, 33. Who was the son of
Amminadab, who was the son of Ram, who was the son of Hezron, who was the son of
Pharez, who was the son of Judah, 34. Who was the son of
Jacob, who was the son of Isaac, who was the son of Abraham, who was the son of
Terah, who was the son of Nahor, 35. Who was the son of
Serug, who was the son of Reu, who was the son of Peleg, who was the son of
Heber, who was the son of Salah, 36. Who was the son of
Cainan, who was the son of Arphaxad, who was the son of Shem, who was the son of
Noah, who was the son of Lamech, 37. Who was the son of
Methuselah, who was the son of Enoch, who was the son of Jared, who was the son
of Mahalaleel, who was the son of Cainan, 38. Who was the son
of Enos, who was the son of Seth, who was the son of Adam, who was the son of
God.
|
As all are not agreed about these two
genealogies, which are given by Matthew and Luke, we must first see whether both
trace the genealogy of Christ from Joseph, or whether Matthew only traces it
from Joseph, and Luke from Mary. Those who are of this latter opinion have a
plausible ground for their distinction in the diversity of the names: and
certainly, at first sight, nothing seems more improbable than that Matthew and
Luke,
who differ so widely from each other, give one and the same genealogy. For
from David to Salathiel, and again from Zerubbabel till Joseph, the names are
totally different.
Again, it is alleged, that it would have been idle to
bestow so great pains on a thing of no use, in relating a second time the
genealogy of Joseph, who after all was not the father of Christ. “Why this
repetition,” say they, “which proves nothing that contributes much
to the edification of faith? If nothing more be known than this, that Joseph was
one of the descendants and family of David, the genealogy of Christ will still
remain doubtful.” In their opinion, therefore, it would have been
superfluous that two Evangelists should apply themselves to this subject. They
excuse Matthew for laying down the ancestry of Joseph, on the ground, that he
did it for the sake of many persons, who were still of opinion that he was the
father of Christ. But it would have been foolish to hold out such an
encouragement to a dangerous error: and what follows is at total variance with
the supposition. For as soon as he comes to the close of the genealogy, Matthew
points out that Christ was conceived in the womb of the virgin, not from the
seed of Joseph, but by the secret power of the Spirit. If their argument were
good, Matthew might be charged with folly or inadvertence, in laboring to no
purpose to establish the genealogy of Joseph.
But we have not yet replied to their objection, that
the ancestry of Joseph has nothing to do with Christ. The common and well-known
reply is, that in the person of Joseph the genealogy of Mary also is included,
because the law enjoined every man to marry from his own tribe. It is objected,
on the other hand, that at almost no period had that law been observed: but the
arguments on which that assertion rests are frivolous. They quote the instance
of the eleven tribes binding themselves by an oath, that they would not give a
wife to the Benjamites,
(<072101>Judges
21:1.) If this matter, say they, had been settled by law, there would have been
no need for a new enactment. I reply, this extraordinary occurrence is
erroneously and ignorantly converted by them into a general rule: for if one
tribe had been cut off, the body of the people must have been incomplete if some
remedy had not been applied to a case of extreme necessity. We must not,
therefore, look to this passage for ascertaining the common
law.
Again, it is objected, that Mary, the mother of
Christ, was Elisabeth’s cousin, though Luke has formerly stated that she
was of the daughters of Aaron,
(<420105>Luke
1:5.) The reply is easy. The daughters of the tribe of Judah, or of any other
tribe, were at liberty to marry into the tribe of the priesthood: for they were
not prevented by that reason, which is expressed in the law, that no woman
should “remove her inheritance” to those who were of a different
tribe from her own,
(<043606>Numbers
36:6-9.) Thus, the wife of Jehoiada, the high priest, is declared by the sacred
historian to have belonged to the royal family,—
“Jehoshabeath, the
daughter of Jehoram,
the wife of
Jehoiada the priest,”
(<142211>2
Chronicles 22:11.)
It was, therefore, nothing wonderful or uncommon, if
the mother of Elisabeth were married to a priest. Should any one allege, that
this does not enable us to decide, with perfect certainty, that Mary was of the
same tribe with Joseph, because she was his wife, I grant that the bare
narrative, as it stands, would not prove it without the aid of other
circumstances.
But, in the first place, we must observe, that
the Evangelists do not speak of events known in their own age. When the ancestry
of Joseph had been carried up as far as David, every one could easily make out
the ancestry of Mary. The Evangelists, trusting to what was generally understood
in their own day, were, no doubt, less solicitous on that point: for, if any one
entertained doubts, the research was neither difficult nor
tedious.
f69 Besides, they took for granted,
that Joseph, as a man of good character and behavior, had obeyed the injunction
of the law in marrying a wife from his own tribe. That general rule would not,
indeed, be sufficient to prove Mary’s royal descent; for she might have
belonged to the tribe of Judah, and yet not have been a descendant of the family
of David.
My opinion is this. The Evangelists had in their eye
godly persons, who entered into no obstinate dispute, but in the person of
Joseph acknowledged the descent of Mary; particularly since, as we have said, no
doubt was entertained about it in that age. One matter, however, might appear
incredible, that this very poor and despised couple belonged to the posterity of
David, and to that royal seed, from which the Redeemer was to spring. If any one
inquire whether or not the genealogy traced by Matthew and Luke proves clearly
and beyond controversy that Mary was descended from the family of David, I own
that it cannot be inferred with certainty; but as the relationship between Mary
and Joseph was at that time well known, the Evangelists were more at ease on
that subject. Meanwhile, it was the design of both Evangelists to remove the
stumbling-block arising from the fact, that both Joseph and Mary were unknown,
and despised, and poor, and gave not the slightest indication of
royalty.
Again, the supposition that Luke passes by the
descent of Joseph, and relates that of Mary, is easily refuted; for he expressly
says, that Jesus was supposed to
be the son of Joseph, etc. Certainly,
neither the father nor the grandfather of Christ is mentioned, but the ancestry
of Joseph himself is carefully explained. I am well aware of the manner in which
they attempt to solve this difficulty. The word
son,
they allege, is put for
son-in-law,
and the interpretation they give to Joseph being called the son of Heli is,
that he had married Heli’s daughter. But this does not agree with the
order of nature, and is nowhere countenanced by any example in
Scripture.
If Solomon is struck out of Mary’s genealogy,
Christ will no longer be Christ; for all inquiry as to his descent is founded on
that solemn promise,
“I will set up thy
seed after thee; I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be
his father, and he shall be my
son,”
(<100712>2
Samuel 7:12-14.)
“The Lord hath
sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body
will I set upon thy
throne,”
(<19D211>Psalm
132:11.)
Solomon was, beyond controversy, the type of this
eternal King who was promised to David; nor can the promise be applied to
Christ, except in so far as its truth was shadowed out in Solomon,
(<132805>1
Chronicles 28:5.) Now if the descent is not traced to him, how, or by what
argument, shall he be proved to be “the son of David”? Whoever
expunges Solomon from Christ’s genealogy does at the same time, obliterate
and destroy those promises by which he must be acknowledged to be the son of
David. In what way Luke, tracing the line of descent from Nathan, does not
exclude Solomon, will afterwards be seen at the proper place.
Not to be too tedious, those two genealogies agree
substantially with each other, but we must attend to four points of difference.
The first is; Luke ascends by a retrograde order, from the last to the
first, while Matthew begins with the source of the genealogy. The second
is; Matthew does not carry his narrative beyond the holy and elect race of
Abraham, f70
while Luke proceeds as far as Adam. The third is; Matthew treats of his
legal descent, and allows himself to make some omissions in the line of
ancestors, choosing to assist the reader’s memory by arranging them under
three fourteens; while Luke follows the natural descent with greater exactness.
The fourth and last is; when they are speaking of the same persons, they
sometimes give them different names.
It would be superfluous to say more about the
first point of difference, for it presents no difficulty. The second
is not without a very good reason: for, as God had chosen for himself the
family of Abraham, from which the Redeemer of the world would be born, and as
the promise of salvation had been, in some sort, shut up in that family till the
coming of Christ, Matthew does not pass beyond the limits which God had
prescribed. We must attend to what Paul says,
“that Jesus Christ
was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises
made unto the fathers,”
(<451508>Romans
15:8)
with which agrees that saying of Christ,
“Salvation is of the Jews,”
(<430422>John
4:22.) Matthew, therefore, presents him to our contemplation as belonging to
that holy race, to which he had been expressly appointed. In Matthew’s
catalogue we must look at the covenant of God, by which he adopted the seed of
Abraham as his people, separating them, by a “middle wall of
partition,”
(<490214>Ephesians
2:14,) from the rest of the nations. Luke directed his view to a higher point;
for though, from the time that God had made his covenant with Abraham, a
Redeemer was promised, in a peculiar manner, to his seed, yet we know that,
since the transgression of the first man, all needed a Redeemer, and he was
accordingly appointed for the whole world. It was by a wonderful purpose of God,
that Luke exhibited Christ to us as the son of Adam, while Matthew confined him
within the single family of Abraham. For it would be of no advantage to us, that
Christ was given by the Father as “the author of eternal salvations”
(<580509>Hebrews
5:9,) unless he had been given indiscriminately to all. Besides, that saying of
the Apostle would not be true, that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday,
and to-day, and for ever,”
(<581308>Hebrews
13:8,) if his power and grace had not reached to all ages from the very creation
of the world. Let us know; therefore, that to the whole human race there has
been manifested and exhibited salvation through Christ; for not without reason
is he called the son of Noah, and the son of Adam. But as we must seek him in
the word of God, the Spirit wisely directs us, through another Evangelist, to
the holy race of Abraham, to whose hands the treasure of eternal life, along
with Christ, was committed for a time,
(<450301>Romans
3:1.)
We come now to the third point of difference.
Matthew and Luke unquestionably do not observe the same order; for immediately
after David the one puts Solomon, and the other, Nathan; which makes it
perfectly clear that they follow different lines. This sort of contradiction is
reconciled by good and learned interpreters in the following manner. Matthew,
departing from the natural lineage, which is followed by Luke, reckons up the
legal genealogy. I call it the legal genealogy, because the right to the
throne passed into the hands of Salathiel. Eusebius, in the first book of his
Ecclesiastical History, adopting the opinion of Africanus, prefers applying the
epithet legal to the genealogy which is traced by Luke. But it amounts to
the same thing: for he means nothing more than this, that the kingdom, which had
been established in the person of Solomon, passed in a lawful manner to
Salathiel. But it is more correct and appropriate to say, that Matthew has
exhibited the legal order: because, by naming Solomon immediately after David,
he attends, not to the persons from whom in a regular line, according to the
flesh, Christ derived his birth, but to the manner in which he was descended
from Solomon and other kings, so as to be their lawful successor, in whose hand
God would “stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever,”
(<100713>2
Samuel 7:13.)
There is probability in the opinion that, at the
death of Ahaziah, the lineal descent from Solomon was closed. As to the command
given by David — for which some persons quote the authority of Jewish
Commentators — that should the line from Solomon fail, the royal power
would pass to the descendants of Nathan, I leave it undetermined; holding this
only for certain, that the succession to the kingdom was not confused, but
regulated by fixed degrees of kindred. Now, as the sacred history relates that,
after the murder of Ahaziah, the throne was occupied, and all the seed-royal
destroyed “by his mother Athaliah,
(<121101>2
Kings 11:1,) it is more than probable that this woman, from an eager desire of
power, had perpetrated those wicked and horrible murders that she might not be
reduced to a private rank, and see the throne transferred to another. If there
had been a son of Ahaziah still alive, the grandmother would willingly have been
allowed to reign in peace, without envy or danger, under the mask of being his
tutor. When she proceeds to such enormous crimes as to draw upon herself infamy
and hatred, it is a proof of desperation arising from her being unable any
longer to keep the royal authority in her house.
As to Joash being called “the son of
Ahaziah,”
(<142211>2
Chronicles 22:11,) the reason is, that he was the nearest relative, and was
justly considered to be the true and direct heir of the crown. Not to mention
that Athaliah (if we shall suppose her to be his grandmother)would gladly have
availed herself of her relation to the child, will any person of ordinary
understanding think it probable, that an actual son of the king could be so
concealed by “Jehoiada the priest,” as not to excite the grandmother
to more diligent search? If all is carefully weighed, there will be no
hesitation in concluding, that the next heir of the crown belonged to a
different line. And this is the meaning of Jehoiada’s
words,
“Behold,
the king’s son shall reign, as the Lord hath said of the sons of
David,”
(<142303>2
Chronicles 23:3.)
He considered it to be shameful and intolerable, that
a woman, who was a stranger by blood, should violently seize the scepter, which
God had commanded to remain in the family of David.
There is no absurdity in supposing, that Luke traces
the descent of Christ from Nathan: for it is possible that the line of Solomon,
so far as relates to the succession of the throne, may have been broken off. It
may be objected, that Jesus cannot be acknowledged as the promised Messiah, if
he be not a descendant of Solomon, who was an undoubted type of Christ.
But the answer is easy. Though he was not naturally descended from Solomon,
yet he was reckoned his son by legal succession, because he was descended from
kings.
The fourth point of difference is the great
diversity of the names. Many look upon this as a great difficulty: for from
David till Joseph, with the exception of Salathiel and Zerubbabel, none of the
names are alike in the two Evangelists. The excuse commonly offered, that the
diversity arose from its being very customary among the Jews to have two names,
appears to many persons not quite satisfactory. But as we are now unacquainted
with the method, which was followed by Matthew in drawing up and arranging the
genealogy, there is no reason to wonder, if we are unable to determine how far
both of them agree or differ as to individual names. It cannot be doubted that,
after the Babylonish captivity, the same persons are mentioned under different
names. In the case of Salathiel and Zerubbabel, the same names, I think, were
purposely retained, on account of the change which had taken place in the
nation: because the royal authority was then extinguished. Even while a feeble
shadow of power remained, a striking change was visible, which warned believers,
that they ought to expect another and more excellent kingdom than that of
Solomon, which had flourished but for a short time.
It is also worthy of remark, that the additional
number in Luke’s catalogue to that of Matthew is nothing strange; for the
number of persons in the natural line of descent is usually greater than in the
legal line. Besides, Matthew chose to divide the genealogy of Christ into three
departments, and to make each department to contain fourteen persons. In this
way, he felt himself at liberty to pass by some names, which Luke could not with
propriety omit, not having restricted himself by that rule.
Thus have I discussed the genealogy of Christ, as far
as it appeared to be generally useful. If any one is
tickled
f71 by a keener curiosity, I remember
Paul’s admonition, and prefer sobriety and modesty to trifling and useless
disputes. It is a noted passage, in which he enjoins us to avoid excessive
keenness in disputing about “genealogies, as unprofitable and vain,”
(<560309>Titus
3:9.)
It now remains to inquire, lastly, why Matthew
included the whole genealogy of Christ in
three
classes, and assigned to each class
fourteen persons. Those who think that he did so, in order to aid the memory of
his readers, state a part of the reason, but not the whole. It is true, indeed,
that a catalogue, divided into three equal numbers, is more easily remembered.
But it is also evident that this division is intended to point out a threefold
condition of the nation, from the time when Christ was promised to Abraham, to
“the fullness of the time”
(<480404>Galatians
4:4) when he was “manifested in the flesh,”
(<540316>1
Timothy 3:16.) Previous to the time of David, the tribe of Judah, though it
occupied a higher rank than the other tribes, held no power. In David the royal
authority burst upon the eyes of all with unexpected splendor, and remained till
the time of Jeconiah. After that period, there still lingered in the tribe of
Judah a portion of rank and government, which sustained the expectations of the
godly till the coming of the Messiah.
1.
The book of the
generation. Some commentators give
themselves unnecessary trouble, in order to excuse Matthew for giving to his
whole history this title, which applies only to the half of a single chapter.
For this
ejpigrafh>,
or title, does not extend to the whole book of Matthew: but the word
bi>zlov,
book, is put for catalogue: as if he had said, “Here
follows the catalogue of the generation of Christ.” It is with
reference to the promise, that Christ is called
the son of David, the son of
Abraham: for God had promised to Abraham
that he would give him a seed, “in whom all the families of the earth
should be blessed,”
(<011203>Genesis
12:3.) David received a still clearer promise, that God would “stablish
the throne of his kingdom for ever,”
(<100713>2
Samuel 7:13;) that one of his posterity would be king “as long as the sun
and moon endure,”
(<197205>Psalm
72:5;) and that “his throne should be as the days of heaven,”
(<198929>Psalm
89:29.) And so it became a customary way of speaking among the Jews to call
Christ the son of
David.
2.
Jacob begat Judah and his
brethren. While Matthew passes by in
silence Ishmael, Abraham’s first-born, and Esau, who was Jacob’s
elder brother, he properly assigns a place in the genealogy to the Twelve
Patriarchs, on all of whom God had bestowed a similar favor of adoption. He
therefore intimates, that the blessing promised in Christ does not refer to the
tribe of Judah alone, but belongs equally to all the children of Jacob, whom God
gathered into his Church, while Ishmael and Esau were treated as
strangers.
f72
3.
Judah begat Pharez and Zarah
by Tamar. This was a prelude to that
emptying of himself, f73
of which Paul speaks,
(<502007>Philippians
2:7). The Son of God might have kept his descent unspotted and pure from every
reproach or mark of infamy. But he came into the world to
“empty himself, and
take upon him the form of a servant,”
(<500207>Philippians
2:7)
to be
“a worm, and no
man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people,”
(<192206>Psalm
22:6)
and at length to undergo the accursed death of the
cross. He therefore did not refuse to admit a stain into his genealogy, arising
from incestuous intercourse which took place among his ancestors. Though Tamar
was not impelled by lust to seek connection with her father-in-law, yet it was
in an unlawful manner that she attempted to revenge the injury which she had
received. Judah again intended to commit fornication, and unknowingly to
himself, met with his daughter-in-law.
f74 But the astonishing goodness of
God strove with the sin of both; so that, nevertheless, this adulterous seed
came to possess the scepter.
f75
6.
Begat David the
King. In this genealogy, the designation
of
King
is bestowed on David alone, because in his person God exhibited a type of
the future leader of his people, the Messiah. The kingly office had been
formerly held by Saul; but, as he reached it through tumult and the ungodly
wishes of the people, the lawful possession of the office is supposed to have
commenced with David, more especially in reference to the covenant of God, who
promised that “his throne should be established for ever,”
(<100716>2
Samuel 7:16.) When the people shook off the yoke of God, and unhappily and
wickedly asked a king, saying, “Give us a king to judge us,”
(<090805>1
Samuel 8:5,) Saul was granted for short time. But his kingdom was shortly
afterwards established by God, as a pledge of true prosperity, in the hand of
David. Let this expression, David
the King, be understood by us as
pointing out the prosperous condition of the people, which the Lord had
appointed.
Meanwhile, the Evangelist adds a human disgrace,
which might almost bring a stain on the glory of this divine blessing.
David the King begat Solomon by
her that had been the wife of Uriah; by
Bathsheba, whom he wickedly tore from her husband, and for the sake of enjoying
whom, he basely surrendered an innocent man to be murdered by the swords of the
enemy,
(<101115>2
Samuel 11:15.) This taint, at the commencement of the kingdom, ought to have
taught the
Jews
not to glory in the flesh. It was the design of God to show that, in
establishing this kingdom, nothing depended on human merits.
Comparing the inspired history with the succession
described by Matthew, it is evident that he has omitted three
kings.
f76 Those who say that he did so
through forgetfulness, cannot be listened to for a moment. Nor is it probable
that they were thrown out, because they were unworthy to occupy a place in the
genealogy of Christ; for the same reason would equally apply to many others, who
are indiscriminately brought forward by Matthew, along with pious and holy
persons. A more correct account is, that he resolved to confine the list of each
class to fourteen kings, and gave himself little concern in making the
selection, because he had an adequate succession of the genealogy to place
before the eyes of his readers, down to the close of the kingdom. As to there
being only thirteen in the list, it probably arose from the blunders and
carelessness of transcribers. Epiphanius, in his First Book against Heresies,
assigns this reason, that the name of Jeconiah had been twice put down, and
unlearned
f77 persons ventured to strike out the
repetition of it as superfluous; which, he tells us, ought not to have been
done, because Jehoiakim, the father of king Jehoiakim, had the name Jeconiah, in
common with his son,
(<130317>1
Chronicles 3:17;
<122415>2
Kings 24:15;
<242720>Jeremiah
27:20; 28:4.) Robert Stephens quotes a Greek manuscript, in which the name of
Jehoiakim is introduced.
f78
12.
After the Babylonish
exile. That is, after the Jews were
carried into captivity: for the Evangelist means, that the descendants of David,
from being kings, then became exiles and slaves. As that captivity was a sort of
destruction, it came to be wonderfully arranged by Divine providence, not only
that the Jews again united in one body, but even that some vestiges of dominion
remained in the family of David. For those who returned home submitted, of their
own accord, to the authority of Zerubbabel. In this manner, the fragments of the
royal scepter
f79 lasted till the coming of Christ
was at hand, agreeably to the prediction of Jacob, “The scepter shall not
depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh
come,”
(<014910>Genesis
49:10.) And even during that wretched and melancholy dispersion, the nation
never ceased to be illuminated by some rays of the grace of God. The Greek word
metoikesi>a,
which the old translator renders
transmigration,
and Erasmus renders
exile,
literally signifies a change
of habitation. The meaning is, that the
Jews were compelled to leave their country, and to dwell as “strangers in
a land that was not theirs,”
(<011513>Genesis
15:13.)
16.
.Jesus, who is called
Christ. By the surname
Christ,
Anointed, Matthew points out his office,
to inform the readers that this was not a private person, but one divinely
anointed
to perform the office of Redeemer. What that anointing was, and to what it
referred, I shall not now illustrate at great length. As to the word itself, it
is only necessary to say that, after the royal authority was abolished, it began
to be applied exclusively to Him, from whom they were taught to expect a full
recovery of the lost salvation. So long as any splendor of royalty continued in
the family of David, the kings were wont to be called
cristoi>,
anointed.
f80 But that the fearful desolation
which followed might not throw the minds of the godly into despair, it pleased
God to appropriate the name of
Messiah,
Anointed, to the Redeemer alone: as is
evident from Daniel, (9:25, 26.) The evangelical history everywhere shows that
this was an ordinary way of speaking, at the time when the Son of God was
“manifested in the
flesh,”(<540316>1
Timothy 3:16.)
MATTHEW
1:18-25
|
MATTHEW
1:18-25
|
|
18. Now the birth of Jesus Christ
was in this manner. For when his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before
they came together, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.
19. And Joseph her husband, as he was a just man, and was
unwilling to injure her reputation, intended to send her away secretly.
20. And while he was considering these things, lo, the angel
of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, Joseph, son of David, fear not
to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is by the
Holy Spirit. 21. And she shall bear a son, and thou shalt
call his name JESUS. For he shall save his people from their sins.
22. Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which
was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying,
23. Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bear a
son, and they shall call his name Immanuel: which, if one interprets it, means,
God is with us. 24. Then Joseph, being raised from sleep, did
as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife:
25. And knew her not, till she brought forth her first-born
son: and called his name JESUS.
|
18.
Now the birth of Jesus Christ. Matthew
does not as yet relate the place or manner of Christ’s birth, but the way
in which his heavenly generation was made known to Joseph. First, he says that
Mary was found to be with child
by the Holy Spirit. Not that this secret
work of God was generally known: but the historian mixes up, with the knowledge
of men,
f81 the power of the Spirit, which was
still unknown. He points out the time:
When she was espoused to
Joseph, and
before they came
together. So far as respects conjugal
fidelity, from the time that a young woman was betrothed to a man, she was
regarded by the Jews as his lawful wife. When a “damsel betrothed to an
husband” was convicted of being unchaste, the law condemned both of the
guilty parties as adulterers:
“the damsel,
because she cried not, being in the
city;
and the man, because he hath
humbled his neighbor’s
wife,”
(<052223>Deuteronomy
22:23, 24.)
The phrase employed by the Evangelist,
before they came
together, is either a modest appellation
for conjugal intercourse, or simply means, “before they came to dwell
together as husband and wife, and to make one home and family.” The
meaning will thus be, that the virgin had not yet been delivered by her parents
into the hands of her husband, but still remained under their
roof.
19.
As he was a just
man. Some commentators explain this to
mean, that Joseph,
because
he was a just man, determined to spare his
wife: f82
taking
justice
to be only another name for humanity, or, a gentle and merciful disposition.
But others more correctly read the two clauses as contrasted with each other:
that Joseph was a just
man, but yet that he was anxious about
the reputation of his wife. That justice, on which a commendation is here
bestowed, consisted in hatred and abhorrence of crime. Suspecting his wife of
adultery, and even convinced that she was an adulterer, he was unwilling to hold
out the encouragement of lenity to such a
crime.
f83 And certainly he is but a
pander
f84 to his wife, who connives at her
unchastity. Not only is such wickedness regarded with abhorrence by good and
honorable minds, but that winking at crime which I have mentioned is marked by
the laws with infamy.
Joseph, therefore, moved by an ardent love
of
justice, condemned the crime of which he
supposed his wife to have been guilty; while the gentleness of his disposition
prevented him from going to the utmost rigor of law. It was a moderate and
calmer method to depart privately, and remove to a distant
place.
f85 Hence we infer, that he was not of
so soft and effeminate a disposition, as to screen and promote uncleanness under
the pretense of merciful dealing: he only made some abatement from stern
justice, so as not to expose his wife to evil report. Nor ought we to have any
hesitation in believing, that his mind was restrained by a secret inspiration of
the Spirit. We know how weak jealousy is, and to what violence it hurries its
possessor. Though Joseph did not proceed to rash and headlong conduct, yet he
was wonderfully preserved from many imminent dangers, which would have sprung
out of his resolution to depart.
The same remark is applicable to Mary’s
silence. Granting that modest reserve prevented her from venturing to tell her
husband, that she was with child
by the Holy Spirit, it was not so much
by her own choice, as by the providence of God that she was restrained. Let us
suppose her to have spoken. The nature of the case made it little short of
incredible. Joseph would have thought himself ridiculed, and everybody would
have treated the matter as a laughing-stock: after which the Divine
announcement, if it had followed, would have been of less importance. The Lord
permitted his servant Joseph to be betrayed by ignorance into an erroneous
conclusion, that, by his own voice, he might bring him back to the right
path.
Yet it is proper for us to know, that this was done
more on our account than for his personal advantage: for every necessary method
was adopted by God, to prevent unfavorable suspicion from falling on the
heavenly message. When the angel approaches Joseph, who is still unacquainted
with the whole matter, wicked men have no reason to charge him with being
influenced by prejudice to listen to the voice of God. He was not overcome by
the insinuating address of his wife. His previously formed opinion was not
shaken by entreaties. He was not induced by human arguments to take the opposite
side. But, while the groundless accusation of his wife was still rankling in his
mind, God interposed between them, that we might regard Joseph as a more
competent witness, and possessing greater authority, as a messenger sent to us
from heaven. We see how God chose to employ an angel in informing his servant
Joseph, that to others he might be a heavenly herald, and that the intelligence
which he conveyed might not be borrowed from his wife, or from any
mortal.
The reason why this mystery was not immediately made
known to a greater number of persons appears to be this. It was proper that this
inestimable treasure should remain concealed, and that the knowledge of it
should be imparted to none but the children of God. Nor is it absurd to say,
that the Lord intended, as he frequently does, to put the faith and obedience of
his own people to the trial. Most certainly, if any man shall maliciously refuse
to believe and obey God in this matter, he will have abundant reason to be
satisfied with the proofs by which this article of our faith is supported. For
the same reason, the Lord permitted Mary to enter into the married state, that
under the veil of marriage, till the full time for revealing it, the heavenly
conception of the virgin might be concealed. Meanwhile, the knowledge of it was
withheld from unbelievers, as their ingratitude and malice
deserved.
20.
And while he was considering
these things. We see here how
seasonably, and, as we would say, at the very point, the Lord usually aids his
people. Hence too we infer that, when he appears not to observe our cares and
distresses, we are still under his eye. He may, indeed, hide himself, and remain
silent; but, when our patience has been subjected to the trial, he will aid us
at the time which his own wisdom has selected. How slow or late soever his
assistance may be thought to be, it is for our advantage that it is thus
delayed.
The angel of the Lord appeared to
him in a dream. This is one of two
ordinary kinds of revelations mentioned in the book of Numbers, where the Lord
thus speaks:
“If there be a
prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and
will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so. With him will I
speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speechess,”
(<041206>Numbers
12:6-8.)
But we must understand that dreams of this sort
differ widely from natural dreams; for they have a character of certainty
engraven on them, and are impressed with a divine seal, so that there is not the
slightest doubt of their truth. The dreams which men commonly have, arise either
from the thoughts of the
day,
or from their natural temperament, or from bodily indisposition, or from
similar causes: while the dreams which come from God are accompanied by the
testimony of the Spirit, which puts beyond a doubt that it is God who
speaks.
Son of David, fear
not. This exhortation shows, that Joseph
was perplexed with the fear of sharing in the criminality of his wife, by
enduring her adultery. The angel removes his suspicion of guilt, with the view
of enabling him to dwell with his wife with a safe conscience. The appellation,
Son of
David, was employed on the present
occasion, in order to elevate his mind to that lofty mystery; for he belonged to
that family, and was one of the surviving few,
f86 from whom the salvation promised
to the world could proceed. When he heard the name of
David,
from whom he was
descended,
Joseph ought to have remembered that remarkable promise of God which related
to the establishment of the kingdom, so as to acknowledge that there was nothing
new in what was now told him. The predictions of the prophets were, in effect,
brought forward by the angel, to prepare the mind of Joseph for receiving the
present favor.
21.
And thou shalt call his
name JESUS. I have already explained
briefly, but as far as was necessary, the meaning of that word. At present I
shall only add, that the words of the angel set aside the dream of those who
derive it from the essential name of God, Jehovah; for the angel expresses the
reason why the Son of God is so called,
Because he
shall SAVE
his
people; which suggests quite a different
etymology from what they have contrived. It is justly and appropriately added,
they tell us, that Christ will be the author of salvation, because he is the
Eternal God. But in vain do they attempt to escape by this subterfuge; for the
nature of the blessing which God bestows upon us is not all that is here stated.
This office was conferred upon his Son from the fact, from the command which had
been given to him by the Father, from the office with which he was invested when
he came down to us from heaven. Besides, the two words
jIhsou~v
and
hwhy,
Jesus
and
Jehovah,
agree but in two letters, and differ in all the rest; which makes it
exceedingly absurd to allege any affinity whatever between them, as if they were
but one name. Such mixtures I leave to the alchymists, or to those who closely
resemble them, the Cabalists who contrive for us those trifling and affected
refinements.
When the Son of God came to us clothed in flesh, he
received from the Father a name which plainly told for what purpose he came,
what was his power, and what we had a right to expect from him. for the name
Jesus
is derived from the Hebrew verb, in the Hiphil conjugation,
[yçwh,
which signifies to
save. In Hebrew it is pronounced
differently,
Jehoshua;
but the Evangelists, who wrote in Greek, followed the customary mode of
pronunciation; for in the writings of Moses, and in the other books of the Old
Testament, the Hebrew word
[wçwhy,
Jehoshua,
or
Joshua,
is rendered by the Greek translators
jIhsou~v,
Jesus.
But I must mention another instance of the ignorance of those who
derive—or, I would rather say, who forcibly tear—the name
Jesus
from
Jehovah.
They hold it to be in the highest degree improper that any mortal man should
share this name in common with the Son of God, and make a strange outcry that
Christ would never allow his name to be so profaned. As if the reply were not at
hand, that the name
Jesus
was quite as commonly used in those days as the name
Joshua.
Now, as it is sufficiently clear that the name
Jesus
presents to us the Son of God as the Author of salvation, let us examine
more closely the words of the angel.
He shall save his people from their
sins. The first truth taught us by these
words is, that those whom Christ is sent to save are in themselves lost. But he
is expressly called the Savior of the Church. If those whom God admits to
fellowship with himself were sunk in death and ruin till they were restored to
life by Christ, what shall we say of “strangers”
(<490212>Ephesians
2:12) who have never been illuminated by the hope of life? When salvation is
declared to be shut up in Christ, it clearly implies that the whole human race
is devoted to destruction. The cause of this destruction ought also to be
observed; for it is not unjustly, or without good reason, that the Heavenly
Judge pronounces us to be accursed. The angel declares that we have perished,
and are overwhelmed by an awful condemnation, because we stand excluded from
life by our sins. Thus we obtain a view of our corruption and depravity; for if
any man lived a perfectly holy life, he might do without Christ as a Redeemer.
But all to a man need his grace; and, therefore, it follows that they are the
slaves of sin, and are destitute of true righteousness.
Hence, too, we learn in what way or manner Christ
saves; he delivers us from sins. This deliverance consists of two parts.
Having made a complete atonement, he brings us a free pardon, which delivers us
from condemnation to death, and reconciles us to God. Again, by the sanctifying
influences of his Spirit, he frees us from the tyranny of Satan, that we may
live “unto righteousness,”
(<600224>1
Peter 2:24.) Christ is not truly acknowledged as a Savior, till, on the one
hand, we learn to receive a free pardon of our sins, and know that we are
accounted righteous before God, because we are free from guilt; and till, on the
other hand, we ask from him the Spirit of righteousness and holiness, having no
confidence whatever in our own works or power. By Christ’s
people
the angel unquestionably means the Jews, to whom he was appointed as Head
and King; but as the Gentiles were shortly afterwards to be ingrafted into the
stock of Abraham,
(<451117>Romans
11:17,) this promise of
salvation
is extended indiscriminately to all who are incorporated by faith in the
“one body”
(<461220>1
Corinthians 12:20) of the Church.
22.
Now all this was
done. It is ignorant and childish
trifling to argue, that the name
Jesus
is given to the Son of God, because he is called
Immanuel.
For Matthew does not confine this assertion to the single fact of the name,
but includes whatever is heavenly and divine in the conception of Christ; and
that is the reason why he employs the general term
all.
We must now see how appropriately the prediction of Isaiah is applied. It is
a well-known and remarkable passage,
(<230714>Isaiah
7:14,) but perverted by the Jews with their accustomed malice; though the hatred
of Christ and of truth, which they thus discover, is as blind and foolish as it
is wicked. To such a pitch of impudence have many of their Rabbins proceeded, as
to explain it in reference to King Hezekiah, who was then about fifteen years of
age. And what, I ask, must be their rage for lying, when, in order to prevent
the admission of clear light, they invert the order of nature, and shut up a
youth in his mother’s womb, that he may be born sixteen years old? But the
enemies of Christ deserve that God should strike them with a spirit of giddiness
and insensibility, should
“pour out upon them
a spirit of deep sleep and close their eyes,”
(<232910>Isaiah
29:10.)
Others apply it to a creature of their own fancy,
some unknown son of Ahaz, whose birth Isaiah predicted. But with what propriety
was he called
Immanuel,
or the land subjected to his sway, who closed his life in a private station
and without honor? for shortly afterwards the prophet tells us that this child,
whoever he was, would be ruler of the land. Equally absurd is the notion that
this passage relates to the prophet’s son. On this subject we may remark,
that Christian writers have very strangely misapprehended the prediction
contained in the next chapter, by applying it to Christ. The prophet there says,
that, instructed by a vision, he “went unto the prophetess; and she
conceived, and bare a son,” and that the child whom she bore was named by
Divine command,”Maher-shalal-hash-baz,” “Making speed to the
spoil, hasten the prey,”
(<230803>Isaiah
8:3.) All that is there described is approaching war, accompanied by fearful
desolation; which makes it very manifest that the subjects are totally
different.
Let us now, therefore, investigate the true meaning
of this passage. The city of Jerusalem is besieged. Ahaz trembles, and is almost
dead with terror. The prophet is sent to assure him that God will protect the
city. But a simple promise is not sufficient to compose his agitated mind. The
prophet is sent to him, saying,
“Ask thee a sign of
the Lord thy God;
ask it either in
the depth, or in the height
above,”
(<230711>Isaiah
7:11.)
That wicked hypocrite, concealing his unbelief,
disdains to ask a sign. The prophet rebukes him sharply, and at length
adds,
“The Lord himself
shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and
shall call his name
Immanuel,”
(<230714>Isaiah
7:14.)
We expound this as relating to Christ in the
following manner: “You, the whole posterity of David, as far as lies in
your power, endeavor to nullify the grace which is promised to you;” (for
the prophet expressly calls them, by way of disgrace, the house of David,
<230713>Isaiah
7:13;) “but your base infidelity will never prevent the truth of God from
proving to be victorious. God promises that the city will be preserved safe and
unhurt from its enemies. If his word is not enough, he is ready to give you the
confirmation of such a sign as you may demand. You reject both favors, and spurn
them from you; but God will remain steady to his engagement. For the promised
Redeemer will come, in whom God will show himself to be fully present to his
people.”
The Jews reply, that Isaiah would have been at
variance with everything like reason or probability, if he had given to the men
of that age a sign, which was not to be exhibited till after the lapse of nearly
eight hundred years. And then they assume the airs of haughty
triumph,
f87 as if this objection of the
Christians had originated in ignorance or thoughtlessness, and were now
forgotten and buried. But the solution, I think, is easy; provided we keep in
view that a covenant of adoption was given to the Jews, on which the other acts
of the divine kindness depended. There was then a general promise, by which God
adopted the children of Abraham as a nation, and on which were founded all the
special promises. Again, the foundation of this covenant was the Messiah. Now we
hold, that the reason for delivering the city was, that it was the sanctuary of
God, and out of it the Redeemer would come. But for this, Jerusalem would a
hundred times have perished.
Let pious readers now consider, when the royal family
had openly rejected the sign which God had offered to them, if it was not
suitable that the prophet should pass all at once to the Messiah, and address
them in this manner: “Though this age is unworthy of the deliverance of
which God has given me a promise, yet God is mindful of his covenant, and will
rescue this city from its enemies. While he grants no particular sign to testify
his grace, this one sign ought to be deemed more than sufficient to meet your
wishes. from the stock of David the Messiah will arise.” Yet it must be
observed that, when the prophet reminds unbelievers of the general covenant, it
is a sort of reproof, because they did not accept of a particular sign. I have
now, I think, proved that, when the door was shut against every kind of miracle,
the prophet made an appropriate transition to Christ, for the purpose of leading
unbelievers to reflect, that the only cause of the deliverance was the covenant
that had been made with their fathers. And by this remarkable example has God
been pleased to testify to all ages, that he followed with uninterrupted
kindness the children of Abraham, only because in Christ, and not through their
own merits, he had made with them a gracious covenant.
There is another piece of sophistry by which the Jews
endeavor to parry our argument. Immediately after the words in question, the
prophet adds:
“Before the child
shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest
shall be forsaken of both her kings,”
(<230716>Isaiah
7:16.)
Hence they infer, that the promised birth of the
child would be delayed for a very short time; otherwise, it would not agree with
the rapidly approaching change of the kingdoms, which, the prophet announeed,
would take place before that child should have passed half the period of
infancy. I reply, when Isaiah has given a sign of the future Savior, and
declared that a child will be born, who is the true Immanuel, or—to
use Paul’s language—God manifest in the flesh,
(<540316>1
Timothy 3:16,) he proceeds to speak, in general terms, of all the children of
his own time. A strong proof of this readily presents itself; for, after having
spoken of the general promise of God, he returns to the special promise, which
he had been commissioned to declare. The former passage, which relates to a
final and complete redemption, describes one particular child, to whom alone
belongs the name of God; while the latter passage, which relates to a special
benefit then close at hand, determines the time by the childhood of those who
were recently born, or would be born shortly afterwards.
Hitherto, if I mistake not, I have refuted, by strong
and conclusive arguments, the calumnies of the Jews, by which they endeavor to
prevent the glory of Christ from appearing, with resplendent luster, in this
prediction. It now remains for us to refute their sophistical reasoning about
the Hebrew word
hml[,
virgin.
f88 They wantonly persecute Matthew
for proving that Christ was born of a virgin,
f89 while the Hebrew noun merely
signifies a young
woman; and ridicule us for being led
astray by the wrong translation
f90 of a word, to believe that he was
born by the Holy Spirit, of whom the prophet asserts no more than that he would
be the son of a young woman. And, first, they display an excessive eagerness for
disputation, by laboring
f91 to prove that a word, which is
uniformly applied in Scripture to
virgins,
denotes here a young woman who had known a man. The etymology too agrees
with Matthew’s translation of the word: for it means
hiding,
f92 which expresses the modesty that
becomes a virgin.
f93 They produce a passage from the
book of Proverbs, “the way of a man with a maids,”
hml[b,
(<203019>Proverbs
30:19.) But it does not at all support their views. Solomon speaks there of a
young woman who has obtained the affections of a young man: but it does not
follow as a matter of course, that the young man has seduced the object of his
regard; or rather, the probability leans much more strongly to the other
side. f94
But granting all that they ask as to the meaning of
the word, the subject demonstrates, and compels the acknowledgment, that the
prophet is speaking of a miraculous and extraordinary birth. He exclaims that he
is bringing a sign from the Lord, and not an ordinary sign, but one superior to
every other.
The Lord himself shall
give you a sign.
Behold, a virgin
shall conceive,
(<230714>Isaiah
7:14.)
If he were only to say, that a woman would bear a
child, how ridiculous would that magnificent preface have been? Thus we see,
that the insolence of the Jews exposes not only themselves, but the sacred
mysteries of God, to scorn.
Besides, a powerful argument may be drawn from the
whole strain of the passage.
Behold, a virgin shall
conceive. Why is no mention made of a
man? It is because the prophet draws our attention to something very uncommon.
Again, the virgin is commanded to name the child.
Thou shalt call his name
Immanuel. In this respect, also, the
prophet expresses something extraordinary: for, though it is frequently related
in Scripture, that the names were given to children by their mothers, yet it was
done by the authority of the fathers. When the prophet addresses his discourse
to the virgin, he takes away from men, in respect to this child, that authority
which is conferred upon them by the order of nature. Let this, therefore, be
regarded as an established truth, that the prophet here refers to a remarkable
miracle of God, and recommends it to the attentive and devout consideration of
all the godly,—a miracle which is basely profaned by the Jews, who apply
to the ordinary method of conception what is said in reference to the secret
power of the Spirit.
23.
His name
Immanuel. The phrase,
God is with
us, is no doubt frequently employed in
Scripture to denote, that he is present with us by his assistance and grace, and
displays the power of his hand in our defense. But here we are instructed as to
the manner in which God communicates with men. For out of Christ we are
alienated from him; but through Christ we are not only received into his favor,
but are made one with him. When Paul says, that the Jews under the law were
nigh to God,
(<490217>Ephesians
2:17,) and that a deadly enmity
(<490215>Ephesians
2:15) subsisted between him and the Gentiles, he means only that, by shadows and
figures, God then gave to the people whom he had adopted the tokens of his
presence. That promise was still in force, “The Lord thy God is among
you,”
(<050721>Deuteronomy
7:21,) and, “This is my rest for ever,”
(<19D214>Psalm
132:14.) But while the familiar intercourse between God and the people depended
on a Mediator, what had not yet fully taken place was shadowed out by symbols.
His seat and residence is placed “between the Cherubim,”
(<198001>Psalm
80:1,) because the ark was the figure and visible pledge of his
glory.
But in Christ the actual presence of God with his
people, and not, as before, his shadowy presence, has been
exhibited.
f95 This is the reason, why Paul says,
that “in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,”
(<510209>Colossians
2:9.) And certainly he would not be a properly qualified Mediator, if he did not
unite both natures in his person, and thus bring men into an alliance with God.
Nor is there any force in the objection, about which the Jews make a good deal
of noise, that the name of God is frequently applied to those memorials, by
which he testified that he was present with believers.
For it cannot be denied, that this name,
Immanuel,
contains an implied contrast between the presence of God, as exhibited in
Christ, with every other kind of presence, which was manifested to the ancient
people before his coming. If the reason of this name began to be actually true,
when Christ appeared in the flesh, it follows that it was not completely, but
only in part, that God was formerly united with the Fathers.
Hence arises another proof, that Christ is God
manifested in the flesh,
(<540316>1
Timothy 3:16.) He discharged, indeed, the office of Mediator from the beginning
of the world; but as this depended wholly on the latest revelation, he is justly
called Immanuel at that time, when clothed, as it were, with a new character, he
appears in public as a Priest, to atone for the sins of men by the sacrifice of
his body, to reconcile them to the Father by the price of his blood, and, in a
word, to fulfill every part of the salvation of
men. f96
The first thing which we ought to consider in this name is the divine
majesty of Christ, so as to yield to him the reverence which is due to the only
and eternal God. But we must not, at the same time, forget the fruit which God
intended that we should collect and receive from this name. For whenever we
contemplate the one person of Christ as God-man, we ought to hold it for certain
that, if we are united to Christ by faith, we possess God.
In the words,
they shall
call, there is a change of the number.
But this is not at all at variance with what I have already said. True, the
prophet addresses the virgin alone, and therefore uses the second person,
Thou shalt
call. But from the time that this name
was published, all the godly have an equal right to make this confession, that
God has given himself to us to be enjoyed in
Christ.
f97
24.
Joseph, being raised from
sleep. The ready performance, which is
here described, serves not less to attest the certainty of Joseph’s faith,
than to commend his obedience. For, if every scruple had not been removed, and
his conscience fully pacified, he would never have proceeded so cheerfully, on a
sudden change of opinion, to take
unto him his wife, whose society, he
lately thought, would pollute him.
f98 The dream must have carried some
mark of Divinity, which did not allow his mind to hesitate. Next followed the
effect of faith. Having learned the will of God, he instantly prepared himself
to obey.
25.
And knew her
not. This passage afforded the pretext
for great disturbances, which were introduced into the Church, at a former
period, by Helvidius. The inference he drew from it was, that Mary remained a
virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other
children by her husband. Jerome, on the other hand, earnestly and copiously
defended Mary’s perpetual virginity. Let us rest satisfied with this, that
no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the
Evangelist, as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called
first-born;
but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a
virgin.
f99 It is said that Joseph
knew her not till she had brought
forth her first-born son: but this is
limited to that very time. What took place afterwards, the historian does not
inform us. Such is well known to have been the practice of the inspired writers.
Certainly, no man will ever raise a question on this subject, except from
curiosity; and no man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an
extreme fondness for disputation.
LUKE 2:1-7
|
LUKE
2:1-7
|
|
1. Now it happened in those days,
an edict came out from Augustus Caesar, that the whole world should be
registered.
f100
2. This first
registration
f101
was made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.
3. And all went to make the
return,
f102
each in his own city. 4. And
Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, into
the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, (because he was of the
house and lineage of David,) 5. To make the return with
Mary
f103
his betrothed wife, who was pregnant.
6. And it happened while they were there, the days of
bringing forth were fulfilled.
f104
7. And she brought forth her
first-born son, and wrapped him in bandages,
f105
and laid him in a
manger;
f106
because there was no room for them in the
inn.
|
Luke relates how it happened, that Christ was
born in the city of Bethlehem, as his mother was living at a distance from her
home, when she was approaching to her confinement. And first he sets aside the
idea of human contrivance,
f107 by saying, that Joseph and Mary
had left home, and came to that place to make the return according to their
family and tribe. If intentionally and on
purpose
f108 they had changed their residence
that Mary might bring forth her child in Bethlehem, we would have looked only at
the human beings concerned. But as they have no other design than to obey the
edict of Augustus, we readily acknowledge, that they were led like blind
persons, by the hand of God, to the place where Christ must be born. This may
appear to be accidental, as everything else, which does not proceed from a
direct human intention, is ascribed by irreligious men to Fortune. But we must
not attend merely to the events themselves. We must remember also the prediction
which was uttered by the prophet many centuries before. A comparison will
clearly show it to have been accomplished by the wonderful Providence of God,
that a registration was then enacted by Augustus Caesar, and that Joseph and
Mary set out from home, so as to arrive in Bethlehem at the very point of
time.
Thus we see that the holy servants of God, even
though they wander from their design, unconscious where they are going, still
keep the right path, because God directs their steps. Nor is the Providence of
God less wonderful in employing the mandate of a tyrant to draw Mary from home,
that the prophecy may be fulfilled. God had marked out by his prophet—as
we shall afterwards see—the place where he determined that his Son should
be born. If Mary had not been constrained to do otherwise, she would have chosen
to bring forth her child at home. Augustus orders a registration to take place
in Judea, and each person to give his name, that they may afterwards pay an
annual tax, which they were formerly accustomed to pay to God. Thus an ungodly
man takes forcible possession of that which God was accustomed to demand from
his people. It was, in effect, reducing the Jews to entire subjection, and
forbidding them to be thenceforth reckoned as the people of
God.
Matters have been brought, in this way, to the last
extremity, and the Jews appear to be cut off and alienated for ever from the
covenant of God. At that very time does God suddenly, and contrary to universal
expectation, afford a remedy. What is more, he employs that wicked tyranny for
the redemption of his people. For the governor, (or whoever was employed by
Caesar for the purpose,) while he executes the commission entrusted to him, is,
unknown to himself, God’s herald, to call Mary to the place which God had
appointed. And certainly Luke’s whole narrative may well lead believers to
acknowledge, that Christ was led by the hand of God “from his
mother’s belly,”
(<192210>Psalm
22:10.) Nor is it of small consequence
f109 to the certainty of faith to
know, that Mary was drawn suddenly, and contrary to her own intention, to
Bethlehem, that “out of it might come forth”
(<330502>Micah
5:2) the Redeemer, as he had been formerly promised.
1.
The whole
world. This figure of
speech
f110 (by which the whole is taken for
a part, or a part for the whole) was in constant use among the Roman authors,
and ought not to be reckoned harsh. That this registration might be more
tolerable and less odious, it was extended equally, I have no doubt, to all the
provinces; though the rate of taxation may have been different. I consider
this first
registration to mean, that the Jews,
being completely subdued, were then loaded with a new and unwonted yoke. Others
read it, that this registration
was first made when Cyrenius was
governor of
Syria;
f111 but there is no probability in
that view. The tax was, indeed, annual; but the registration did not take place
every year. The meaning is, that the Jews were far more heavily oppressed than
they had formerly been.
There is a diversity as to the name of the Proconsul.
Some call him
Cyrenius,
(Kurh>niov,)
and others,
Quirinus
or
Quirinius.
But there is nothing strange in this;for we know that the Greeks, when they
translate Latin names, almost always make some change in the pronunciation. But
a far greater difficulty springs up in another direction. Josephus says that,
while Archelaus was a prisoner at Vienna, (Ant. 17:13. 2,) Quirinus came as
Proconsul, with instructions to annex Judea to the province of Syria, (xviii.
1.1.) Now, historians are agreed, that Archelaus reigned nine years after the
death of his father Herod. It would therefore appear, that there was an interval
of about thirteen years between the birth of Christ and this registration; for
almost all assent to the account given by Epiphanius, that Christ was born in
the thirty-third year of Herod: that is, four years before his
death.
Another circumstance not a little perplexing is, that
the same Josephus speaks of this registration as having happened in the
thirty-seventh year after the victory at
Actium,
f112 (Ant. 18:2. 1.) If this be true,
Augustus lived, at the utmost, not more than seven years after this event; which
makes a deduction of eight or nine years from his age: for it is plain from the
third chapter of Luke’s Gospel, that he was at that time only in his
fifteenth year. But, as the age of Christ is too well known to be called in
question, it is highly probable that, in this and many other passages of
Josephus’s History, his recollection had failed him. Historians are agreed
that Quirinus was Consul nineteen years, or thereby, before the victory over
Antony, which gave Augustus the entire command of the empire: and so he must
have been sent into the province at a very advanced age. Besides, the same
Josephus enumerates four governors of Judea within eight years; while he
acknowledges that the fifth was governor for fifteen years. That was Valerius
Gratus, who was succeeded by Pontius Pilate.
Another solution may be offered. It might be found
impracticable to effect the registration immediately after the edict had been
issued: for Josephus relates, that Coponius was sent with an army to reduce the
Jews to subjection, (Ant. 18:2.2 :) from which it may easily be inferred, that
the registration was prevented, for a time, by popular tumult. The words of Luke
bear this sense, that, about the time of our Lord’s birth, an edict came
out to have the people registered, but that the registration could not take
place till after a change of the kingdom, when Judea had been annexed to another
province. This clause is accordingly added by way of correction.
This first registration was made
when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.
That is, it was then first carried into
effect. f113
But the whole question is not yet answered: for,
while Herod was king of Judea, what purpose did it serve to register a people
who paid no tribute to the Roman Empire? I reply: there is no absurdity in
supposing that Augustus, by way of accustoming the Jews to the yoke, (for their
obstinacy was abundantly well-known,) chose to have them registered, even under
the reign of Herod.
f114 Nor did Herod’s peculiar
authority as king make it inconsistent that the Jews should pay to the Roman
Empire a stipulated sum for each man under the name of a tax: for we know that
Herod, though he was called a king, held nothing more than a borrowed power, and
was little better than a slave. On what authority Eusebius states that this
registration took place by an order of the Roman Senate, I know
not.
7.
Because there was no room for
them in the inn. We see here not only
the great poverty of Joseph, but the cruel tyranny which admitted of no excuse,
but compelled Joseph to bring his wife along with him, at an inconvenient
season, when she was near the time of her delivery. Indeed, it is probable that
those who were the descendants of the royal family were treated more harshly and
disdainfully than the rest. Joseph was not so devoid of feeling as to have no
concern about his wife’s delivery. He would gladly have avoided this
necessity: but, as that is impossible, he is forced to
yield,
f115 and commends himself to God. We
see, at the same time, what sort of beginning the life of the Son of God had,
and in what cradle
f116 he was placed. Such was his
condition at his birth, because he had taken upon him our flesh for this
purpose, that he might, empty himself”
(<502007>Philippians
2:7) on our account. When he was thrown into a stable, and placed in a manger,
and a lodging refused him among men, it was that heaven might be opened to us,
not as a temporary lodging,
f117 but as our eternal country and
inheritance, and that angels might receive us into their abode.
LUKE 2:8-14
|
LUKE
2:8-14
|
|
8. And there were shepherds in the
same country abiding in the fields,
f118
and watching by night over their
flock.
f119
9. And, lo, the angel of the
Lord came upon them: and the glory
f120
of the Lord shone round about them, and they
feared with a great fear. 10. And the angel said to them,
Fear not: for, lo, I announce to you great joy, which shall be to all the
people: 11. For this day is born to you a Savior, who is
Christ the Lord, in the city of David. 12. And this shall be
a sign to you :
f121
you shall find the babe wrapped in
swaddling-bands
f122
laid in a manger: 13. And
suddenly there was present with the angel a multitude of the heavenly
host,
f123
praising God, and saying,
14. Glory in the highest
f124
to God, and on earth peace, among men
good-will. f125
|
8.
And there were
shepherds. It would have been to no
purpose that Christ was born in Bethlehem, if it had not been made known to the
world. But the method of doing so, which is described by Luke, appears to the
view of men very unsuitable. First, Christ is revealed but to a few witnesses,
and that too amidst the darkness of night. Again, though God had, at his
command, many honorable and distinguished witnesses, he passed by them, and
chose shepherds, persons of humble rank, and of no account among men. Here the
reason and wisdom of the flesh must prove to be foolishness; and we must
acknowledge, that “the foolishness of God”
(<460125>1
Corinthians 1:25) excels all the wisdom that exists, or appears to exist, in the
world. But this too was a part of the “emptying of himself,”
(<501706>Philippians
2:6:) not that any part of Christ’s glory should be taken away by it, but
that it should lie in concealment for a time. Again, as Paul reminds us, that
the gospel is mean according to the flesh, “that our faith should
stand” in the power of the Spirit, not in the
“lofty
f126 words of human wisdom,” or
in any worldly splendor,
f127
(<460204>1
Corinthians 2:4,5;) so this inestimable “treasure” has been
deposited by God, from the beginning, “in earthen vessels,”
(<470407>2
Corinthians 4:7,) that he might more fully try the obedience of our faith. If
then we desire to come to Christ, let us not be ashamed to follow those whom the
Lord, in order to cast down the pride of the world, has taken, from among the
dung f128
of cattle, to be our instructors.
9.
And, lo, the angel of the
Lord came upon them. He says, that
the glory of the
Lord
f129
shone
around the shepherds, by which they
perceived him to be an angel.
f130 For it would have been of little
avail to be told by an angel what is related by Luke, if God had not testified,
by some outward sign, that what they heard proceeded from Him. The angel
appeared, not in an ordinary form, or without majesty, but surrounded with the
brightness of heavenly glory, to affect powerfully the minds of the shepherds,
that they might receive the discourse which was addressed to them, as coming
from the mouth of God himself. Hence the
fear,
of which Luke shortly afterwards speaks, by which God usually humbles the
hearts of men, (as I have formerly explained,) and disposes them to receive his
word with reverence.
10.
Fear
not. The design of this exhortation is
to alleviate their fear. For, though it is profitable for the minds of men to be
struck with awe, that they may learn to “give unto the Lord the glory due
unto his name,”
(<192902>Psalm
29:2;) yet they have need, at the same time, of consolation, that they may not
be altogether overwhelmed. For the majesty of God could not but swallow up the
whole world, if there were not some mildness to mitigate the terror which it
brings. And so the reprobate fall down lifeless at the sight of God, because he
appears to them in no other character than that of a judge. But to revive the
minds of the shepherds, the angel declares that he was sent to them for a
different purpose, to announce to
them the mercy of God. When men hear
this single word, that God is reconciled to them, it not only raises up those
who are fallen down, but restores those who were ruined, and recalls them from
death to life.
The angel opens his discourse by saying, that he
announces great
joy; and next assigns the ground or
matter of joy, that a Savior is
born. These words show us, first, that,
until men have peace with God, and are reconciled to him through the grace of
Christ, all the joy that they experience is deceitful, and of short
duration.
f131 Ungodly men frequently indulge in
frantic and intoxicating mirth; but if there be none to make peace between them
and God, the hidden stings of conscience must produce fearful torment. Besides,
to whatever extent they may flatter themselves in luxurious indulgence, their
own lusts are so many tormentors. The commencement of solid joy is, to perceive
the fatherly love of God toward us, which alone gives tranquillity to our minds.
And this “joy,” in which, Paul tells us, “the kingdom of
God” consists, is “in the Holy Spirit,”
(<451417>Romans
14:17.) By calling it great
joy, he shows us, not only that we
ought, above all things, to rejoice in the salvation brought us by Christ, but
that this blessing is so great and boundless, as fully to compensate for all the
pains, distresses, and anxieties of the present life. Let us learn to be so
delighted with Christ alone, that the perception of his grace may overcome, and
at length remove from us, all the distresses of the
flesh. f132
Which shall be to all the
people. Though the angel addresses the
shepherds alone, yet he plainly states, that the message of salvation which he
brings is of wider extent, so that not only they, in their private capacity, may
hear it, but that others may also hear. Now let it be understood, that this joy
was common to all people, because, it was indiscriminately offered to all. For
God had promised Christ, not to one person or to another, but to the whole seed
of Abraham. If the Jews were deprived, for the most part, of the joy that was
offered to them, it arose from their unbelief; just as, at the present day, God
invites all indiscriminately to salvation through the Gospel, but the
ingratitude of the world is the reason why this grace, which is equally offered
to all, is enjoyed by few. Although this joy is confined to a few persons, yet,
with respect to God, it is said to be common. When the angel says that this
joy shall be to all the
people, he speaks of the chosen people
only; but now that, the middle wall of partition”
(<490214>Ephesians
2:14) has been thrown down, the same message has reference to the whole human
race.
f133 For Christ proclaims peace, not
only, to them that are nigh,”but to them that are, far off,”
(<490217>Ephesians
2:17,) to “strangers”
(<490212>Ephesians
2:12) equally with citizens. But as the peculiar covenant with the Jews lasted
till the resurrection of Christ, so the angel separates them from the rest of
the nations.
11.
This day is born to
you. Here, as we lately hinted, the
angel expresses the cause of the joy.
This day is
born the Redeemer long ago promised, who
was to restore the Church of God to its proper condition. The angel does not
speak of it as a thing altogether unknown. He opens his embassy by referring to
the Law and the Prophets; for had he been addressing heathens or irreligious
persons, it would have been of no use to employ this mode of speaking:
this day is born to you a Savior,
who is Christ the Lord. For the same
reason, he mentions that he was born
in the city of
David, which could serve no purpose, but
to recall the remembrance of those promises which were universally known among
the Jews. Lastly, the angel adapted his discourse to hearers who were not
altogether unacquainted with the promised redemption. With the doctrine of the
Law and the Prophets he joined the Gospel, as emanating from the same source.
Now, since the Greek word Greek, as Cicero assures us, has a more extensive
meaning than the Latin word Servator, and as there is no Latin noun that
corresponds to it, I thought it better to employ a barbarous term, than to take
anything away from the power of Christ. And I have no doubt, that the author of
the Vulgate, and the ancient doctors of the Church, had the same
intention.
f134 Christ is called
Savior,
f135 because he bestows a complete
salvation. The pronoun to
you
f136 is very emphatic; for it would
have given no great delight to hear that the Author of salvation was
born,
unless each person believed that for himself he was born. In the same manner
Isaiah says, “Unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given,”
(<230906>Isaiah
9:6;) and Zechariah, “Behold, thy King cometh unto thee lowly,”
(<380909>Zechariah
9:9.)
12.
And this shall be a sign to
you.
f137 The angel meets the prejudice
which might naturally hinder the faith of the shepherds; for what a mockery is
it, that he, whom God has sent to be the King, and the only Savior, is seen
lying in a manger! That the mean and despicable condition in which Christ was
might not deter the shepherds from believing in Christ, the angel tells them
beforehand what they would see. This method of proceeding, which might appear,
to the view of men, absurd and almost ridiculous, the Lord pursues toward us
every day. Sending down to us from heaven the word of the Gospel, he enjoins us
to embrace Christ crucified, and holds out to us
signs
in earthly and fading elements, which raise us to the glory of a blessed
immortality. Having promised to us spiritual righteousness, he places before our
eyes a little water: by a small portion of bread and wine, he
seals,
f138 the eternal life of the
soul.
f139 But if the stable gave no offense
whatever to the shepherds, so as to prevent them from going to Christ to obtain
salvation, or from yielding to his authority, while he was yet a child; no sign,
however mean in itself, ought to hide his glory from our view, or prevent us
from offering to him lowly adoration, now that he has ascended to heaven, and
sits at the right hand of the Father.
13.
And suddenly there was
present with the angel a multitude. An
exhibition of divine splendor had been already made in the person of a single
angel. But God determined to adorn his own Son in a still more illustrious
manner, This was done to confirm our faith as truly as that of the shepherds.
Among men, the testimony of
“two or three
witnesses”
(<401816>Matthew
18:16) is sufficient to remove all doubt. But here is a heavenly host, with
one consent and one voice bearing testimony to the Son of God. What then would
be our obstinacy, if we refused to join with the choir of angels, in singing the
praises of our salvation, which is in Christ? Hence we infer, how abominable in
the sight of God must unbelief be, which disturbs this delightful harmony
between heaven and earth. Again, we are convicted of more than brutal stupidity,
if our faith and our zeal to praise God are not inflamed by the song which the
angels, with the view of supplying us with the matter of our praise, sang in
full harmony. Still farther, by this example of heavenly melody, the Lord
intended to recommend to us the unity of faith, and to exhort us to join with
one consent in singing his praises on
earth.
14.
Glory to God in the
highest. The angels begin with
thanksgiving, or with the praises of God; for Scripture, too, everywhere reminds
us, that we were redeemed from death for this purpose, that we might testify
with the tongue, as well as by the actions of the life, our gratitude to God.
Let us remember, then, the final cause, why God reconciled us to himself through
his Only Begotten Son. It was that he might glorify his name, by revealing the
riches of his grace, and of his boundless mercy. And even now to whatever extent
any one is excited by his knowledge of grace to celebrate the glory of God, such
is the extent of proficiency in the faith of Christ. Whenever our salvation is
mentioned, we should understand that a signal has been
given,
f140 to excite us to thanksgiving and
to the praises of God.
On earth
peace. The most general reading is, that
the words, among men
good-will, should stand as a third
clause. So far as relates to the leading idea of the passage, it is of little
moment which way you read it; but the other appears to be preferable. The two
clauses, Glory to God in the
highest, and
peace on
earth, do unquestionably agree with each
other; but if you do not place
men
and
God
in marked opposition, the contrast will not fully
appear.
f141 Perhaps commentators have
mistaken the meaning of the preposition
ejn,
for it was an obscure meaning of the words to say, that there is
peace in
men; but as that word is redundant in
many passages of Scripture, it need not detain us here. However, if any one
prefer to throw it to the last clause, the meaning will be the same, as I shall
presently show.
We must now see what the angels mean by the word
peace.
They certainly do not speak of an outward peace cultivated by men with each
other; but they say, that the earth is at peace, when men have been reconciled
to God, and enjoy an inward tranquillity in their own
minds.
f142 We know that we are born
“children of wrath,”
(<490203>Ephesians
2:3,) and are by nature enemies to God; and must be distressed by fearful
apprehensions, so long as we feel that God is angry with us. A short and clear
definition of
peace
may be obtained from two opposite things,—the wrath of God and the
dread of death. It has thus a twofold reference; one to God, and another to men.
We obtain peace with God, when he begins to be gracious to us, by taking away
our guilt, and “not imputing to us our trespasses,”
(<470519>2
Corinthians 5:19;) and when we, relying on his fatherly love, address him with
full confidence, and boldly praise him for the salvation which he has promised
to us. Now though, in another passage, the life of man on earth is declared to
be a continual warfare,
f143
(<180701>Job
7:1,) and the state of the fact shows that nothing is more full of trouble than
our condition, so long as we remain in the world, yet the angels expressly say
that there is peace on
earth. This is intended to inform us
that, so long as we trust to the grace of Christ, no troubles that can arise
will prevent us from enjoying composure and serenity of mind. Let us then
remember, that faith is seated amidst the storms of temptations, amidst various
dangers, amidst violent attacks, amidst contests and fears, that our faith may
not fail or be shaken by any kind of opposition.
Among men
good-will.
f144 The Vulgate has
good-will
in the genitive case: to men
of
good-will.
f145 How that reading crept in, I know
not: but it ought certainly to be rejected, both because it is not
genuine,
f146 and because it entirely
corruptsthe meaning. Others read
good-will
in the nominative case, and still mistake its meaning. They refer
good-will
to men, as if it were an exhortation to embrace the grace of God. I
acknowledge that the peace which the Lord offers to us takes effect only when we
receive it. But as
eujdoki>a
is constantly used in Scripture in the sense of the Hebrew word
ˆwxr,
the old translator rendered it beneplacitum, or,
good-will.
This passage is not correctly understood as referring to the acceptance of
grace. The angels rather speak of it as the source of peace, and thus inform us
that peace is a free gift, and flows from the pure mercy of God. If it is
thought better to read good-will
to men, or
towards
men,
f147 it will not be inadmissible, so
far as regards the meaning: for in this way it will show the cause of
peace
to be, that God has been pleased to bestow his undeserved favor on men, with
whom he formerly was at deadly variance. If you read,
the peace of
good-will as meaning voluntary peace,
neither will I object to that interpretation. But the simpler way is to look
upon
eujfoki>a
as added, in order to inform us of the source from which our peace is
derived. f148
LUKE 2:15-21
|
LUKE
2:15-21
|
|
15. And it happened, after that
the angels departed from them into heaven, that the shepherds then talked among
themselves, Let us pass even to Bethlehem, and let us see what has happened,
which the Lord hath revealed to us. 16. And they came
hastening, and found Mary and Joseph, and the babe laid in the manger.
17. And when they had seen it, they published concerning the
word which had been told them about this child. 18. And all
who heard wondered about those things which had been told them by the shepherds.
19. Now Mary kept all these words, laying them up in her
heart.
f149
20. And the shepherds
returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things which they had heard
and seen, as it had been told to them. 21. And after that
eight days were fulfilled, that the child might be circumcised, his name was
called JESUS: which had been called by the angel before he was conceived in the
womb.
|
15.
After that the angels
departed. Here is described to us the
obedience of the shepherds. The Lord had made them the witnesses of his Son to
the whole world. What he had spoken to them by his angels was efficacious, and
was not suffered to pass away. They were not plainly and expressly commanded to
come to Bethlehem; but, being sufficiently aware that such was the design of
God, they hasten to see Christ. In the same manner, we know that Christ is held
out to us, in order that our hearts may approach him by faith; and our delay in
coming admits of no excuse.
f150 But again, Luke informs us, that
the shepherds resolved to set out, immediately after the angels had departed.
This conveys an important lesson. Instead of allowing the word of God, as many
do, to pass away with the sound, we must take care that it strike its roots deep
in us, and manifest its power, as soon as the sound has died away upon our ears.
It deserves our attention, also, that the shepherds exhort one another: for it
is not enough that each of us is attentive to his own duty, if we do not give
mutual exhortations. Their obedience is still farther commended by the statement
of Luke, that they
hastened,
(ver. 16;) for we are required to show the readiness of
faith.
Which the Lord hath revealed to
us. They had only heard it from the
angel; but they intentionally and correctly say, that
the Lord had
revealed it to them; for they consider
the messenger of God to possess the same authority as if the Lord himself had
addressed them. For this reason, the Lord directs our attention to himself; that
we may not fix our view on men, and undervalue the authority of his Word. We see
also that they reckon themselves under obligation, not to neglect the treasure
which the Lord had pointed out to them; for they conclude that, immediately
after receiving this intelligence, they must go to Bethlehem to see it. In the
same manner, every one of us, according to the measure of his faith and
understanding, ought to be prepared to follow wheresoever God
calls.
16.
And found
Mary. This was a revolting sight, and
was sufficient of itself to produce an aversion to Christ. For what could be
more improbable than to believe that he was the King of the whole people, who
was deemed unworthy to be ranked with the lowest of the multitude? or to expect
the restoration of the kingdom and salvation from him, whose poverty and want
were such, that he was thrown into a stable? Yet Luke writes, that none of these
things prevented the shepherds from admiring and praising God. The glory of God
was so fully before their eyes, and reverence for his Word was so deeply
impressed upon their minds, that the elevation of their faith easily rose above
all that appeared mean or despicable in Christ.
f151 And the only reason why our faith
is either retarded or driven from the proper course, by some very trifling
obstacles, is, that we do not look steadfastly enough on God, and are easily
“tossed to and fro,”
(<490414>Ephesians
4:14.) If this one thought were entirely to occupy our minds, that we have a
certain and faithful testimony from heaven, it would be a sufficiently strong
and firm support against every kind of temptations, and will sufficiently
protect us against every little offense that might have been
taken.
17.
They published concerning the
word. It is mentioned by Luke, in
commendation of the faith of the shepherds, that they honestly delivered to
others what they had received from the Lord; and it was advantageous to all of
us that they should attest this, and should be a sort of secondary angels in
confirming our faith. Luke shows also that, in publishing what they had heard,
they were not without success.
f152 Nor can it be doubted, that the
Lord gave efficacy to what they said, that it might not be ridiculed or
despised; for the low rank of the men diminished their credit, and the
occurrence itself might be regarded as fabulous. But the Lord, who gave them
this employment, does not allow it to be fruitless.
That the Lord should adopt such a method of
proceeding as this,—should employ inconsiderable men in publishing his
Word, may not be quite so agreeable to the human mind. But it tends to humble
the pride of the flesh, and to try the obedience of faith; and therefore God
approves of it. Still, though all are astonished, no one moves a step to come to
Christ: from which we may infer, that the impression made upon them by hearing
of the power of God, was unaccompanied by any devout affection of the heart. The
design of publishing this report was not so much for their salvation, as to
render the ignorance of the whole people
inexcusable.
19.
Now Mary
kept. Mary’s diligence in
contemplating the works of God is laid before us for two reasons; first, to
inform us, that this treasure was laid up in her heart, for the purpose of being
published to others at the proper time; and, secondly, to afford to all the
godly an example for imitation. For, if we are wise, it will be the chief
employment, and the great object of our life, to consider with attention those
works of God which build up our faith.
Mary
kept all these
things. This relates to her memory.
Sumba>llein
signifies to throw
together,—to collect the several
events which agreed in proving the glory of Christ, so that they might form one
body. For Mary could not wisely estimate the collective value of all those
occurrences, except by comparing them with each
other.
20.
Glorifying and praising
God. This is another circumstance which
is fitted to be generally useful in confirming our faith. The shepherds knew
with certainty that this was a work of God. Their zeal in
glorifying and praising
God is an implied reproof of our
indolence, or rather of our ingratitude. If the cradle of
Christ
f153 had such an effect upon them, as
to make them rise from the stable and the manger to heaven, how much more
powerful ought the death and resurrection of Christ to be in raising us to God?
For Christ did not only ascend from the earth, that he might draw all things
after him; but he sits at the right hand of the Father, that, during our
pilgrimage in the world, we may meditate with our whole heart on the heavenly
life. When Luke says, that the testimony of the angel served as a rule to the
shepherds in all that they did,
f154 he points out the nature of true
godliness. For our faith is properly aided by the works of God, when it directs
everything to this end, that the truth of God, which was revealed in his word,
may be brought out with greater
clearness.
21.
That the child might be
circumcised. As to circumcision in
general, the reader may consult the Book of Genesis, (17:10.) At present, it
will be sufficient to state briefly what applies to the person of Christ. God
appointed that his Son should be circumcised, in order to subject him to the
law; for circumcision was a solemn rite, by which the Jews
were initiated into the observance of the
law. f155
Paul explains the design,
f156 when he says, that Christ
was
“made under the
law, to redeem them that were under the law,”
(<480404>Galatians
4:4,5.)
By undergoing circumcision, Christ acknowledged
himself to be the slave
f157 of the law, that he might procure
our freedom. And in this way not only was the
bondage
f158 of the law abolished by him, but
the shadow of the ceremony was applied to his own body, that it might shortly
afterwards come to an end. For though the abrogation of it depends on the death
and resurrection of Christ, yet it was a sort of prelude to it, that the Son of
God submitted to be circumcised.
His name was called
JESUS. This passage shows, that it was a
general custom among the Jews to give names to their children on the day that
they were circumcised, just as we now do at baptism. Two things are here
mentioned by the Evangelist. First, the name
Jesus
was not given to the Son of God accidentally, or by the will of men, but was
the name which the angel had brought from heaven. Secondly, Joseph and Mary
obeyed the command of God. The agreement between our faith and the word of God
lies in this, that he speaks first, and we follow, so that our faith answers to
his promises. Above all, the order of preaching the word is held up by Luke for
our commendation. Salvation through the grace of Christ, he tells us, had been
promised by God through the angel, and was proclaimed by the voice of
men.
MATTHEW 2:1-6
|
MATTHEW
2:1-6
|
|
1. Now when Jesus had been born in
Bethlehem of Judea,
f159
in the times of Herod the King, lo, Magi from
the East came to Jerusalem, 2. Saying, Where is he who is
born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the East, and have come that
we may worship him. 3. And having heard these things, Herod
the King was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 4. And
having assembled all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired at
them where Christ should be born. 5. But they said to him, In
Bethlehem of Judea: for thus it has been written by the prophet:
6. And thou, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art by no means
the least among the princes of Judah: for out of thee shall come the
leader,
f160
who shall feed my people
Israel.
|
1.
Now when Jesus had been
born. How it came about that Jesus was
born in Bethlehem, Matthew does not say. The Spirit of God, who had appointed
the Evangelists to be his clerks,
f161 appears purposely to have
regulated their style in such a manner, that they all wrote one and the same
history, with the most perfect agreement, but in different ways. It was
intended, that the truth of God should more clearly and strikingly appear, when
it was manifest that his witnesses did not speak by a preconcerted plan, but
that each of them separately, without paying any attention to another, wrote
freely and honestly what the Holy Spirit dictated.
This is a very remarkable narrative. God brought
Magi
from Chaldea, to come to the land of Judea, for the purpose of adoring
Christ, in the stable where he lay, amidst the tokens, not of honor, but of
contempt. It was a truly wonderful purpose of God, that he caused the entrance
of his Son into the world to be attended by deep meanness, and yet bestowed upon
him illustrious ornaments, both of commendation and of other outward signs, that
our faith might be supplied with everything necessary to prove his Divine
Majesty.
A beautiful instance of real harmony, amidst apparent
contradiction, is here exhibited. A star from heaven announces that he is a
king, to whom a manger, intended for cattle, serves for a throne, because he is
refused admittance among the lowest of the people. His majesty shines in the
East, while in Judea it is so far from being acknowledged, that it is visited by
many marks of dishonor. Why is this? The heavenly Father chose to appoint the
star and the Magi as our guides, to lead directly to his Son: while he stripped
him of all earthly splendor, for the purpose of informing us that his kingdom is
spiritual. This history conveys profitable instruction, not only because God
brought the
Magi
to his Son, as the first-fruits of the Gentiles, but also because he
appointed the kingdom of his Son to receive their commendation, and that of the
star, for the confirmation of our faith; that the wicked and malignant contempt
of his nation might not render him less estimable in our eyes.
Magi
is well known to be the name given by the Persians and Chaldees to
astrologers and philosophers: and hence it may readily be conjectured that those
men came from Persia.
f162 As the Evangelist does not state
what was their number, it is better to be ignorant of it, than to affirm as
certain what is doubtful. Papists have been led into a childish error, of
supposing that they were
three
in number: because Matthew says, that they brought
gold, frankincense, and
myrrh, (verse 11.) But the historian
does not say, that each of them separately presented his own gift. He rather
says, that those three gifts were presented by them in common. That ancient
author, whoever he may be, whose imperfect Commentary on Matthew bears the name
of Chrysostom, and is reckoned among Chrysostom’s works, says that they
were fourteen. This carries as little probability as the other. It may have come
from a tradition of the Fathers, but has no solid foundation. But the most
ridiculous contrivance of the Papists on this subject is, that those men were
kings, because they found in another passage a prediction, that
the kings of Tarshish,
and of the Isles, and of Sheba,
would offer gifts to the Lord,
(<197210>Psalm
72:10.)
Ingenious workmen, truly, who, in order to present
those men in a new shape, have begun with turning the world from one side to
another: for they have changed the south and west into
the
east! Beyond all doubt, they have been
stupified by a righteous judgment of God, that all might laugh at the gross
ignorance of those who have not scrupled to adulterate “and, change the
truth of God into a lie,”
(<450125>Romans
1:25.)
The first inquiry here is: Was this
star
one of those which the Lord created in the beginning
(<010101>Genesis
1:1,16) to “garnish the heavens?”
(<182613>Job
26:13.) Secondly, Were the
magi
led by their acquaintance with astrology to conclude that it pointed out the
birth of Christ? On these points, there is no necessity for angry disputation:
but it may be inferred from the words of Matthew, that it was not a natural, but
an extraordinary star. It was not agreeable to the order of nature, that it
should disappear for a certain period, and afterwards should suddenly become
bright; nor that it should pursue a straight course towards Bethlehem, and at
length remain stationary above the house where Christ was. Not one of these
things belongs to natural stars. It is more probable that it
resembled
f163 a comet, and was seen, not in the
heaven, but in the air. Yet there is no impropriety in Matthew, who uses popular
language, calling it incorrectly a
star.
This almost decides likewise the second question: for
since astrology is undoubtedly confined within the limits of nature, its
guidance alone could not have conducted the
Magi
to Christ; so that they must have been aided by a secret revelation of the
Spirit. I do not go so far as to say, that they derived no assistance whatever
from the art: but I affirm, that this would have been of no practical advantage,
if they had not been aided by a new and extraordinary
revelation.
2.
Where is he who has been born
King? The notion of some commentators,
that he is said to have been born
King, by indirect contrast with one who
has been
made
or
created
a king, appears to me too trifling. I rather suppose the
Magi
to have simply meant, that this king had been recently born, and was still a
child, by way of distinguishing him from a king who is of age, and who holds the
reins of government: for they immediately add, that they had been drawn, not by
the fame of his exploits, or by any present exhibitions of his greatness, but by
a heavenly presage of his future reign. But if the sight of a star had so
powerful an effect on the
Magi,
woe to our insensibility, who, now that Christ the King has been revealed to
us, are so cold in our inquiries after him!
And have come that we may worship
him. The reason why the
star
had been exhibited was, to draw the
Magi
into Judea, that they might be witnesses and heralds of the new
King.
f164 So far as respects themselves,
they had not come to render to Christ such pious worship, as is due to the Son
of God, but intended to salute him, according to the Persian
custom,
f165 as a very eminent King. For their
views, with regard to him, probably went no farther, than that his power and
exalted rank would be so extraordinary as to impress all nations with just
admiration and reverence. It is even possible, that they wished to gain his
favor beforehand, that he might treat them favorably and kindly, if he should
afterwards happen to possess dominion in the
east.
3.
Herod the king was
troubled. Herod was not unacquainted
with the predictions, which promised to the Jews a King, who would restore their
distressful and ruinous affairs to a prosperous condition. He had lived from a
child among that nation, and was thoroughly acquainted with their affairs.
Besides, the report was spread everywhere, and could not be unknown to the
neighboring nations. Yet he is
troubled,
as if the matter had been new and unheard of; because he put no trust in
God, and thought it idle to rely on the promises of a Redeemer; and particularly
because, with the foolish confidence incident to proud men, he imagined that the
kingdom was secure to himself and his descendants. But though, in the
intoxication of prosperity, he was formerly accustomed to view the prophecies
with scorn, the recollection of them now aroused him to sudden alarm. For he
would not have been so strongly moved by the simple tale of the
Magi,
if he had not remembered the predictions, which he had formerly looked upon
as harmless,
f166 and of no importance. Thus, when
the Lord has permitted unbelievers to sleep, he suddenly breaks their
rest. f167
And all Jerusalem with
him. This may be explained in two ways.
Either the people were roused, in a tumultuous manner, by the novelty of the
occurrence, though the glad tidings of a king who had been born to them were
cordially welcomed. Or the people, accustomed to distresses, and rendered
callous by long endurance, dreaded a change which might introduce still greater
calamities. For they were so completely worn down, and almost wasted, by
continued wars, that their wretched and cruel bondage appeared to them not only
tolerable, but desirable, provided it were accompanied by peace. This shows how
little they had profited under God’s chastisements: for they were so
benumbed and stupified, that the promised redemption and salvation almost
stank
f168 in their nostrils. Matthew
intended, I have no doubt, to express their ingratitude, in being so entirely
broken by the long continuance of their afflictions, as to throw away the hope
and desire of the grace which had been promised to
them.
4.
Having assembled the
priests. Though deep silence prevailed
respecting Christ in the Hall of Herod, yet, as soon as the
Magi
have thrown out the mention of a
King,
predictions are remembered, which formerly lay in oblivion. Herod instantly
conjectures, that the
King,
about whom the
Magi
inquire, is the
Messiah
whom God had formerly promised,
(<270925>Daniel
9:25.) Here again it appears, that Herod is seriously alarmed, when he puts such
earnest inquiries; and no wonder. All tyrants are cowards, and their cruelty
produces stronger alarm in their own breasts than in the breasts of others.
Herod must have trembled more than others, because he perceived that he was
reigning in opposition to God.
This new investigation shows, that the contempt of
Christ, before the arrival of the
Magi,
must have been very deep. At a later period, the scribes and high priests
labored with fury to corrupt the whole of the Scripture, that they might not
give any countenance to Christ. But on the present occasion they reply honestly
out of the Scripture, and for this reason, that Christ and his Gospel have not
yet given them uneasiness. And so all ungodly persons find no difficulty in
giving their assent to God on general principles; but when the truth of God
begins to press them more closely, they throw out the venom of their
rebellion.
We have a striking instance of this, in our own day,
among the Papists. They freely own, that he is the only-begotten Son of God,
clothed with our flesh, and acknowledge the one person of God-man, as subsisting
in the two natures. But when we come to the power and office of Christ, a
contest immediately breaks out; because they will not consent to take a lower
rank, and much less to be reduced to nothing. In a word, so long as wicked men
think that it is taking nothing from themselves, they will yield to God and to
Scripture some degree of reverence. But when Christ comes into close conflict
with ambition, covetousness, pride, misplaced confidence, hypocrisy, and deceit,
they immediately forget all modesty, and break out into rage. Let us therefore
learn, that the chief cause of blindness in the enemies of truth is to be found
in their wicked affections, which change light into
darkness.
6.
And thou,
Bethlehem. The scribes quoted
faithfully, no doubt, the words of the passage in their own language, as it is
found in the prophet. But Matthew reckoned it enough to point out the passage;
and, as he wrote in Greek, he followed the ordinary reading. This passage, and
others of the same kind, readily suggest the inference, that Matthew did not
compose his Gospel in the Hebrew language. It ought always to be observed that,
whenever any proof from Scripture is quoted by the apostles, though they do not
translate word for word, and sometimes depart widely from the language, yet it
is applied correctly and appropriately to their subject. Let the reader always
consider the purpose for which passages of Scripture are brought forward by the
Evangelists, so as not to stick too closely to the particular words, but to be
satisfied with this, that the Evangelists never torture Scripture into a
different meaning, but apply it correctly in its native meaning. But while it
was their intention to supply with milk children and “novices”
(<540306>1
Timothy 3:6) in faith, who were not yet able to endure “strong
meat,”
(<580512>Hebrews
5:12,) there is nothing to prevent the children of God from making careful and
diligent inquiry into the meaning of Scripture, and thus being led to the
fountain by the taste which the apostles afford.
Let us now return to the prediction. Thus it stands
literally in the Prophet:
“And thou,
Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be
little
among the thousands of
Judah, yet out of thee shall
he
come forth to me, who is Ruler in Israel,”
(<330502>Micah
5:2.)
For
Ephratah
Matthew has put
Judah,
but the meaning is the same; for Micah only intended, by this mark, to
distinguish the Bethlehem of which he speaks, from another Bethlehem, which was
in the tribe of Zebulun. There is greater difficulty in what follows: for the
Prophet says, that Bethlehem is
little,
when reckoned among the governments of Judah, while Matthew, on the
contrary: speaks highly of its rank as one of the most distinguished:
thou art by no means the least
among the princes of Judah. This reason
has induced some commentators to read the passage in the prophet as a question,
Art thou little among the
thousands of Judah? But I rather agree
with those who think that Matthew intended, by this change of the language, to
magnify the grace of God in making an inconsiderable and unknown town the
birth-place of the highest King. Although Bethlehem received this distinguished
honor, it was of no advantage to its inhabitants, but brought upon them a
heavier destruction: for there an unworthy reception was given to the Redeemer.
For he is to be
Ruler, Matthew has put
he shall
feed,
(poimanei~)
But he has expressed both, when he says, that Christ is the
leader,
(hJgou>menov,)
and that to him is committed the office of
feeding
his people.
MATTHEW
2:7-12
|
MATTHEW
2:7-12
|
|
7. Then Herod, having secretly
called the Magii inquired at them carefully at what time the star had appeared
8. And having ordered them to go to Bethlehem, he said,
Go,inquire concerning the young child; and, when ye have found him, bring me
back information, that I also may come and worship him.
9. But they, having heard the King, departed; and, lo, the
star which they had seen in the East went before them, till, having advanced, it
stood above the place in which the child was. 10. And, when
they had seen the star, they rejoiced exceedingly with great joy.
11. And, entering the house, they found the young child with
Mary his mother, and, falling down, they worshipped him: and, having opened
their treasures, they presented to him gifts, gold, frankincense, and myrrh.
12. And, warned by a heavenly intimation through a dream,
that they should not return to Herod, they departed, by another way, into their
own country.
|
7.
Then Herod, having secretly
called the Magi. The tyrant did not dare
to avow his fear and uneasiness, lest he might give fresh courage to a people,
by whom he knew that he was hated. In public, therefore, he pretends that this
matter does not concern him, but
inquires
secretly, in order to meet immediate
danger. Though a bad conscience made him timid, there can be no doubt that God
struck his mind with an unusual fear, which for a time made him incapable of
reflection, and almost deprived him of the use of reason. For nothing was more
easy than to send one of his courtiers as an escort, under the pretense of
courtesy, who would investigate the whole matter, and immediately return. Herod
certainly was a man of no ordinary address, and of great courage. It is the more
surprising that, in a case of extremity, and when the remedy is at hand, he
remains in a state of amazement, and almost dead. Let us learn, that a miracle
was effected, in rescuing the Son of God from the jaws of the lion. Not less at
the present day does God infatuate his enemies, so that a thousand schemes of
injuring and ruining his Church do not occur to their minds, and even the
opportunities which are at hand are not embraced. The trick which Herod
practiced on the
Magi,
by pretending that he also would come for the purpose of worshipping Christ,
was avoided by the Lord, as we shall see, in another way. But as Herod’s
dread of arousing the people against him deprived him of the use of his reason,
so again he is driven by such madness, that he does not hesitate or shudder at
the thought of provoking God. For he knew that, if a King were born, it was
ordained by God, that he should raise up the throne “of David, which was
fallen,”
(<300911>Amos
9:11.) He does not therefore attack men, but furiously dares to fight with God.
Two things claim our attention. He was seized with a spirit of giddiness, to
attack God; and, on the other hand, his manner of acting was childish: for his
design was frustrated, so that he was like a “blind man groping in
darkness.”
f169
9.
But they, having heard the
King, departed. It is truly an instance
of base sluggishness, that not one of the Jews offers himself as an escort to
those foreigners, to go and see the King who had been promised to their own
nation. The scribes show them the way, and point out the place where he was
born; but they allow them to depart alone: not one moves a step. They were
afraid, perhaps, of Herod’s cruelty: but it displayed wicked ingratitude
that, for the sake of the salvation which had been offered to them, they were
unwilling to undergo any risk, and cared less about the grace of God than about
the frown of a tyrant. The whole nation, I have lately showed, was so
degenerate, that they chose rather to be oppressed with the yoke of tyranny,
than to submit to any inconvenience arising from a change. If God had not
fortified the minds of the Magi by his Spirit, they might have been discouraged
by this state of things. But the ardor of their zeal is unabated; they set out
without a guide. And yet the means of confirming their faith are not wanting;
for they hear that the King, who had been pointed out to them by a star, was
long ago described, in glowing language, by divine predictions. It would seem
that the star, which hitherto guided them in the way, had lately disappeared.
The reason may easily be
conjectured.
It was, that they might make inquiry in Jerusalem about the new King, and
might thus take away all excuse from the Jews, who, after having been instructed
about the Redeemer who was sent to them, knowingly and willingly despise
him.
11.
They found the young
child. So revolting a sight might
naturally have created an additional prejudice; for Christ was so far from
having aught of royalty surrounding him, that he was in a meaner and more
despised condition than any peasant child. But they are convinced that he is
divinely appointed to be a King. This thought alone, deeply rooted in their
minds, procures their reverence. They contemplate in the purpose of God his
exalted rank, which is still concealed from outward
view.
f170 Holding it for certain, that he
will one day be different from what he now appears, they are not at all ashamed
to render to him the honors of royalty.
Their presents show whence they came: for there can
be no doubt that they brought them as the choicest productions of their country.
We are not to understand, that each of them presented his own offering, but that
the three offerings, which are mentioned by Matthew, were presented by all of
them in common. Almost all the commentators indulge in speculations about those
gifts, as denoting the kingdom, priesthood, and burial of Christ. They make
gold
the symbol of his
kingdom,—frankincense,
of his priesthoods,— and
myrrh,
of his burial. I see no solid.ground for such an opinion. It was customary,
we know, among the Persians, when they offered homage to their kings, to bring a
present
in their hands. The Magi select those three for the
produce of which Eastern countries are celebrated; just as Jacob sent into Egypt
the choicest and most esteemed productions of the soil.
“Take of the best
fruits in the land in your vessels, and carry down the man a present, a little
balm, and a little honey, spices and myrrh, nuts and almonds,”
(<014311>Genesis
43:11.)
Again, in rendering homage, according to the custom
of Persia, to him whom they still regarded as an earthly King, they offered the
productions of the soil. Our duty is, to adore him in a spiritual manner: for
the lawful and reasonable worship which he demands is, that we consecrate first
ourselves, and then all that we have, to his service.
LUKE 2:22-32
|
LUKE
2:22-32
|
|
22. And after that the days of
their
f171
purification were fulfilled according to the
law of Moses, they brought him to Jerusalem, that they might present him to the
Lord, 23. As it is written in the Law of the Lord, Every male
opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord: 24. And
that they might offer a sacrifice, according to what is said in the Law of the
Lord, a pair of turtle-doves, or two young pigeons. 25. And,
lo, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and that man was just
and devout,
f172
waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the
Holy Spirit was upon him. 26. And he had received a
revelation
f173
from the Holy Spirit, that he would not see
death before he saw the Lord's Christ. 27. And he came by the
Spirit into the temple.
f174
And when the parents brought the young child
Jesus, that they might do according to the custom of the Law for him,
28. He also took him into his arms: and blessed God, and
said, 29. Thou now sendest thy servant away, O Lord,
according to thy word, in peace, 30. For my eyes have seen
thy salvation, 31. Which thou hast prepared before the face
of all nations: 32. A light for the enlightening of the
Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.
|
22.
And after that the days were
fulfilled. On the fortieth day after the
birth,
(<031202>Leviticus
12:2,4,)the rite of purification was necessary to be performed. But Mary and
Joseph come to Jerusalem for another reason, to present Christ to the Lord,
because he was the first-born. Let us now speak first of the purification. Luke
makes it apply both to Mary and to Christ:for the pronoun
aujtw~n,
of
them,
can have no reference whatever to Joseph. But it ought not to appear
strange, that Christ, who was to be, made a curse for us on the cross,”
(<480313>Galatians
3:13,) should, for our benefit, take upon him our uncleanness with respect to
legal guilt, though he was “without blemish and without spot,”
(<600119>1
Peter 1:19.) It ought not, I say, to appear strange, if the fountain of purity,
in order to wash away our stains, chose
to
be reckoned unclean.
f175 It is a mistake to imagine that
this law of purification was merely political, and that the woman was unclean in
presence of her husband, not in presence of God. On the contrary, it placed
before the eyes of the Jews both the corruption of their nature, and the remedy
of divine grace.
This law is of itself abundantly sufficient to prove
original sin, while it contains a striking proof of the grace of God. for there
could not be a clearer demonstration of the curse pronounced on mankind than
when the Lord declared, that the child comes from its mother unclean and
polluted, and that the mother herself is consequently defiled by childbearing.
Certainly, if man were not born a sinner, if he were not by nature a child of
wrath,
(<490203>Ephesians
2:3,) if some taint of sin did not dwell in him, he would have no need of
purification. Hence it follows, that all are corrupted in Adam; for the mouth of
the Lord charges all with pollution.
It is in perfect consistency with this, that the Jews
are spoken of, in other passages, as “holy branches of a holy root,”
(<451116>Romans
11:16:) for this benefit did not properly belong to their own persons. They had
been set apart, by the privilege of adoption, as an elect people; but the
corruption, which they had by inheritance from Adam, was first in the order of
time f176
We must, therefore, distinguish between the first nature, and that special
kindness through a covenant, by which God delivers his own people from the curse
which had been pronounced on all. And the design of legal purification was to
inform the Jews, that the pollutions, which they brought with them into
the world at their birth, are washed away by the grace of God.
Hence too we ought to learn, how dreadful is the
contagion of sin, which defiles, in some measure, the lawful order of nature. I
do own that child-bearing is not unclean, and that what would otherwise be lust
changes its character, through the sacredness of the marriage relation. But
still the fountain of sin is so deep and abundant, that its constant
overflowings stain what would otherwise be
pure.
23.
As it is written in the
Law. This was another exercise of piety
which was discharged by Joseph and Mary. The Lord commanded, that all the males
should be dedicated to him, in remembrance of their deliverance; because when
the angel slew all the first-born of Egypt,
(<021229>Exodus
12:29,) he had spared the first-born of Israel.
“On the day that I
smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, I hallowed unto me all the
first-born in Israel, both man and beast: mine shall they be:
I am the Lord”
(<040313>Numbers
3:13.)
They were afterwards permitted to redeem their
first-born at a certain price. Such was the ancient ceremony: and, as the Lord
is the common Redeemer of all,
f177 he has a right to claim us as his
own, from the least to the greatest. Nor is it without a good reason, that Luke
so frequently repeats the statement, that Joseph and Mary did what
was written in the law of the
Lord. For these words teach us, that we
must not, at our own suggestion, attempt any thing in the worship of God, but
must obediently follow what he requires in his
Word.
24.
And that they might offer a
sacrifice. This
sacrifice
belonged to the ceremony of purification; lest any one should suppose that
it was offered for the sake of redeeming the first-born. When the Evangelist
mentions a pair of turtle-doves,
or two young pigeons, he takes for
granted that his readers will understand, that Joseph and Mary were in such deep
poverty, as not to have it in their power to offer a lamb. For this exception is
expressly mentioned:
“If she be not able
to bring a lamb, then she
shall
bring two turtles, or two
young pigeons,”
(<031208>Leviticus
12:8.)
Is it objected, that the Magi had very recently
supplied them with a sufficiency of gold to make the purchase? I reply: We must
not imagine that they had such abundance of gold as to raise them suddenly from
poverty to wealth. We do not read, that their camels were laden with gold. It is
more probable that it was some small present, which they had brought solely as a
mark of respect. The law did not rigorously enjoin, that the poor should spend
their substance on a sacrifice, but drew a line of distinction between them and
the rich, as to the kind of sacrifices, and thus relieved them from burdensome
expense. There would be no impropriety in saying, that Joseph and Mary gave as
much as their circumstances allowed, though they reserved a little money to
defray the expenses of their journey and of their
household.
25.
And, lo, there was a man in
Jerusalem. The design of this narrative
is to inform us that, though nearly the whole nation was profane and
irreligious, and despised God, yet that a few worshippers of God remained, and
that Christ was known to such persons from his earliest infancy. These were
“the remnant” of whom Paul says, that they were preserved
“according to the election of grace,”
(<451105>Romans
11:5.) Within this small band lay the Church of God; though the priests and
scribes, with as much pride as falsehood, claimed for themselves the title of
the Church. The Evangelist mentions no more than two, who recognised Christ at
Jerusalem, when he was brought into the temple. These were Simeon and Anna. We
must speak first of Simeon.
As to his condition in life we are not informed: he
may have been a person of humble rank and of no reputation. Luke bestows on him
the commendation of being
just
and
devout;
and adds, that he had the gift of prophecy: for
the Holy Spirit was upon him.
Devotion and
Righteousness
related to the two tables of the law, and are the two parts of which an
upright life consists. It was a proof of his being
a devout
man, that he
waited for the consolation of
Israel: for no true worship of God can
exist without the hope of salvation, which depends on the faith of his promises,
and particularly on the restoration promised through Christ. Now, since an
expectation of this sort is commended in Simeon as an uncommon attainment, we
may conclude, that there were few in that age, who actually cherished in their
hearts the hope of redemption. All had on their lips the name of the Messiah,
and of prosperity under the reign of David: but hardly any one was to be found,
who patiently endured present afflictions, relying on the consolatory assurance,
that the redemption of the Church was at hand. As the eminence of Simeon’s
piety was manifested by its supporting his mind in the hope of the promised
salvation, so those who wish to prove themselves the children of God, will
breathe out unceasing prayers for the promised redemption. For we, “have
need of patience”
(<581036>Hebrews
10:36) till the last coming of Christ.
And the Holy Spirit was upon
him. The Evangelist does not speak of
“the Spirit of adoptions”
(<450815>Romans
8:15,) which is common to all the children of God, though not in an equal
degree, but of the peculiar gift of prophecy. This appears more clearly from the
next verse and the following one, in which it is said, that he
received a
revelation
f178
from the Holy
Spirit, and that, by the guidance of the
same Spirit, he came into the
temple. Though Simeon had no distinction
of public office, he was adorned with eminent gifts,—with piety, with a
blameless life, with faith and prophecy. Nor can it be doubted, that this divine
intimation, which he received in his individual and private capacity, was
intended generally for the confirmation of all the godly. Jesus is called
the Lord’s
Christ, because he was
anointed
f179 by the Father, and, at the
same time that he received the Spirit, received also the title, of King and
Priest. Simeon is said to have come into the temple by
the
Spirit; that is, by a secret movement
and undoubted revelation, that he might meet
Christ.
f180
29.
Thou now sendest thy servant
away. From this song it is sufficiently
evident, that Simeon looked at the Son of God with different eyes from the eyes
of flesh. For the outward beholding of Christ could have produced no feeling but
contempt, or, at least, would never have imparted such satisfaction to the mind
of the holy man, as to make him joyful and desirous to die, from having reached
the summit of his wishes. The Spirit of God enlightened his eyes by faith, to
perceive, under a mean and poor dress, the glory of the Son of God. He says,
that he would be sent away in
peace; which means, that he would die
with composure of mind, having obtained all that he desired.
But here a question arises. If he chose rather to
depart from life, was it amidst distress of mind and murmuring, as is usually
the case with those who die unwillingly, that Simeon was hurried away? I answer:
we must attend to the circumstance which is added,
according to thy
word. God had promised that Simeon would
behold his Son. He had good reason for continuing in a state of suspense, and
must have lived in some anxiety, till he obtained his expectation. This ought to
be carefully observed; for there are many who falsely and improperly plead the
example of Simeon, and boast that they would willingly die, if this or the other
thing were previously granted to them; while they allow themselves to entertain
rash wishes at their own pleasure, or to form vain expectations without the
authority of the Word of God. If Simeon had said exactly, “Now
(<101921>2
Samuel 19:21;
<250420>Lamentations
4:20,) but was afterwards restricted to “David’s son,” and
“David’s Lord,”
(<402245>Matthew
22:45,) whom Daniel emphatically calls
the Messiah, the
Anointed,
(<270925>Daniel
9:25, 26.)—Ed. I shall die with a composed and easy mind, because I have
seen the Son of God,” this expression would have indicated the weakness of
his faith; but, as he had the
word,
he might have refused to die until the coming of
Christ.
30.
For my eyes have
seen. This mode of expression is very
common in Scripture; but Simeon appears to denote expressly the bodily
appearance of Christ, as if he had said, that he now has the Son of God present
in the flesh, on whom the
eyes
of his mind had been previously fixed. By
saving
f181 I understand the matter of
salvation: for in Christ are hid all the parts of salvation and of a happy life.
Now if the sight of Christ, while he was yet a child, had so powerful an effect
on Simeon, that he approached death with cheerfulness and composure; how much
more abundant materials of lasting peace are now furnished to us, who have the
opportunity of beholding our salvation altogether completed in Christ? True,
Christ no longer dwells on earth, nor do we carry him in our arms: but his
divine majesty shines openly and brightly in the gospel, and there do “we
all,” as Paul says, “behold as in a glass the glory of the
Lord,”—not as formerly amidst the weakness of flesh, but in the
glorious power of the Spirit, which he displayed in his miracles, in the
sacrifice of his death, and in his resurrection. In a word, his absence from us
in body is of such a nature, that we are permitted to behold him sitting at the
right hand of the Father. If such a sight does not bring peace to our minds, and
make us go cheerfully to death, we are highly ungrateful to God, and hold the
honor, which he has bestowed upon us, in little
estimation.
31.
Which thou hast
prepared. By these words Simeon
intimates, that Christ had been divinely appointed, that all nations might enjoy
his grace; and that he would shortly afterwards be placed in an elevated
situation, and would draw upon him the eyes of all. Under this term he includes
all the predictions which relate: to the spread of Christ’s kingdom. But
if Simeon, when holding a little child in his arms, could stretch his mind to
the utmost boundaries of the world, and acknowledge the power of Christ to be
everywhere present, how much more magnificent ought our conceptions regarding
him to be now that he has been set up as a, “standard to the
people,”
(<234922>Isaiah
49:22,) and has revealed himself to the whole
world.
32.
A light for the revelation of
the Gentiles. Simeon now points out the
purpose for which Christ was to be exhibited by the Father before all nations.
It was that he might enlighten
the Gentiles, who had been formerly in
darkness, and might be the glory
of his people Israel. There is propriety
in the distinction here made between the
people
Israel and the
Gentiles:
for by the right of adoption the children of Abraham “were nigh”
(<490217>Ephesians
2:17) to God, while the
Gentiles,
with whom God had made no “covenants of promise,” were
“strangers” to the Church,
(<490212>Ephesians
2:12.) For this reason,
Israel
is called, in other passages, not only the son of God, but his
first-born,
(<243109>Jeremiah
31:9;) and Paul informs us, that “Jesus Christ was a minister of the
circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the
fathers”
(<451508>Romans
15:8.) The preference given to
Israel
above the Gentiles is, that all without distinction may obtain salvation in
Christ.
A light for
revelation
f182 means
for enlightening the
Gentiles. Hence we infer, that men are
by nature destitute of light, till Christ, “the Sun of
Righteousness,”
(<390402>Malachi
4:2,) shine upon them. With regard to
Israel,
though God had bestowed upon him distinguished honor, yet all his glory
rests on this single article, that a Redeemer had been promised to
him.
LUKE 2:33-39
|
LUKE
2:33-39
|
|
33. And his father and mother were
wondering about those things which were spoken of him.
34. And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary his mother, Lo,
this (child) has been set for the ruin, and for the resurrection of many in
Israel, and for a sign, which is spoken against. 35. But also
a sword shall pierce thy own soul: that the thoughts of many hearts may be
revealed. 36. And there was Anna, a prophetess, daughter of
Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher: she had advanced to a great age, and had lived
with her husband seven years from her virginity. 37. And she
was a widow of about eighty-four years, who departed not from the temple
worshipping (God) with fastings and prayer day and night.
38. And she, coming in at that hour, made acknowledgments
also to God,
f183
and spake of him to all who looked for
redemption in Jerusalem. 39. And when they had completed all
things according to the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own
city Nazareth.
|
33.
And his father and mother
were wondering. Luke does not say, that
they were astonished at it as a new thing, but that they contemplated with
reverence, and embraced with becoming admiration, this prediction of the Spirit
uttered by the lips of Simeon, so that they continued to make progress in the
knowledge of Christ. We learn from this example that, when we have once come to
possess a right faith, we ought to collect, on every hand, whatever may aid in
giving to it additional strength. That man has made great proficiency in the
word of God, who does not fail to admire whatever he reads or hears every day,
that contributes to his unceasing progress in
faith.
34.
And Simeon blessed
them. If you confine this to Joseph and
Mary, there will be no difficulty. But, as Luke appears to include Christ at the
same time, it might be asked, What right had Simeon to take upon him the office
of blessing Christ? “Without all contradiction,” says Paul,
“the less is blessed of the greater,”
(<580707>Hebrews
7:7.) Besides, it has the appearance of absurdity, that any mortal man should
offer prayers in behalf of the Son of God. I answer: The Apostle does not speak
there of every kind of blessing, but only of the priestly blessing: for, in
other respects, it is highly proper in men to pray for each other. Now, it is
more probable that Simeon blessed
them, as a private man and as one of the
people, than that he did so in a public character: for, as we have already said,
we nowhere read that he was a priest. But there would be no absurdity in saying,
that he prayed for the prosperity and advancement of Christ’s kingdom: for
in the book of Psalms the Spirit prescribes such a
eujlogi>a,—a
blessing of this nature to all the
godly.
“Blessed is he that
cometh in the name of the Lord; we have blessed you in the name of the
Lords”
(<19B826>Psalm
118:26.)
Lo, this has been
set. This discourse was, no doubt,
directly addressed by Simeon to Mary; but it has a general reference to all the
godly. The holy virgin needed this admonition, that she might not (as usually
happens) be lifted up by prosperous beginnings, so as to be less prepared for
enduring afflictive events. But she needed it on another account, that she might
not expect Christ to be received by the people with universal applause, but that
her mind, on the contrary, might be fortified by unshaken courage against all
hostile attacks. It was the design, at the same time, of the Spirit of God, to
lay down a general instruction for all the godly. When they see the world
opposing Christ with wicked obstinacy, they must be prepared to meet that
opposition, and to contend against it undismayed. The unbelief of the world
is—we know it—a great and serious hinderance; but it must be
conquered, if we wish to believe in Christ. There never was a state of human
society so happily constituted, that the greater part followed Christ. Those who
will enlist in the cause of Christ must learn this as one of their earliest
lessons, and must “ put on” this “armor,”
(<490611>Ephesians
6:11,) that they may be steadfast in believing on him.
It was by far the heaviest temptation, that Christ
was not acknowledged by his own countrymen, and was even ignominiously rejected
by that nation, which boasted that it was the Church of God; and, particularly,
that the priests and scribes, who held in their hands the government of the
Church, were his most determined enemies. For who would have thought, that he
was the King of those, who not only rejected him, but treated him with such
contempt and outrage?
We see, then, that a good purpose was served by
Simeon’s prediction, that Christ was
set for the ruin of many in
Israel. The meaning is, that he was
divinely appointed to cast down and destroy many. But it must be observed, that
the ruin of unbelievers results from their striking against him. This is
immediately afterwards expressed, when Simeon says that Christ is
a sign, which is spoken
against. Because unbelievers are rebels
against Christ, they clash themselves against him, and hence comes their
ruin.
This metaphor is taken from a mark shot at by
archers,
f184 as if Simeon had said, Hence we
perceive the malice of men, and even the depravity of the whole human race, that
all, as if they had made a conspiracy, rise in murmurs and rebellion against the
Son of God. The world would not display such harmony in opposing the Gospel, if
there were not a natural enmity between the Son of God and those men. The
ambition or fury of the enemies of the Gospel carries them in various
directions, faction splits them into various sects, and a wide variety of
superstitions distinguishes idolaters from each other. But while they thus
differ among themselves, they all agree in this, to oppose the Son of God. It
has been justly observed, that the opposition everywhere made to Christ is too
plain an evidence of human depravity. That the world should thus rise against
its Creator is a monstrous sight. But Scripture predicted that this would
happen, and the reason is very apparent, that men who have once been alienated
from God by sin, always fly from him. Instances of this kind, therefore, ought
not to take us by surprise; but, on the contrary, our faith, provided with this
armor, ought to be prepared to fight with the contradiction of the
world.
As God has now gathered an Israel to himself from the
whole world, and there is no longer a distinction between the Jew and the Greek,
the same thing must now happen as, we learn, happened before. Isaiah had said of
his own age,
“The
Lord will be for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offense, to both
the houses of Israel,”(
<230814>Isaiah
8:14.)
From that time, the Jews hardly ever ceased to dash
themselves against God, but the rudest shock was against Christ. The same
madness is now imitated by those who call themselves Christians; and even those,
who lay haughty claims to the first rank in the Church, frequently employ all
the power which they possess in oppressing Christ. But let us remember, all that
they gain is, to be at length crushed and “broken in pieces,”
(<230809>Isaiah
8:9.)
Under the word
ruin
the Spirit denounces the punishment of unbelievers, and thus warns us to
keep at the greatest possible distance from them; lest, by associating with
them, we become involved in the same destruction. And Christ is not the less
worthy of esteem, because, when he appears, many are ruined: for the
“savor” of the Gospel is not less “sweet” and delightful
to God,
(<470215>2
Corinthians 2:15,16,) though it is destructive to the ungodly world. Does any
one inquire, how Christ occasions the
ruin
of unbelievers, who without him were already lost? The reply is easy. Those
who voluntarily deprive themselves of the salvation which God has offered to
them, perish twice.
Ruin
implies the double punishment which awaits all unbelievers, after that they
have knowingly and wilfully opposed the Son of God.
And for the
resurrection. This consolation is
presented as a contrast with the former clause, to make it less painful to our
feelings: for, if nothing else were added, it would be melancholy to hear, that
Christ is “a stone of stumbling,” which will break and
crush, by its hardness, a great part of men. Scripture therefore reminds us of
his office, which is entirely different: for the salvation of men, which is
founded on it, is secure; as Isaiah also says, “Sanctify the
Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread; and
he shall be for a sanctuary,” or fortress of defense,
(<230813>Isaiah
8:13,14.) And Peter speaks more clearly:
“To
whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of
God and precious, ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house.
Wherefore also it is contained in Scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion the
head-stone of the corner, elect, precious, and he that believeth in him shall
not be confounded. Unto you, therefore, which believe, he is precious: but unto
them who are disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is
made the head of the corner,”(1 Peter 2:4-7; Isaiah
28:16.)
That we may not be terrified by the designation
bestowed on Christ, “a stone of stumbling,” let it be instantly
recollected, on the other hand, that he is likewise called the
“corner-stone,” on which rests the salvation of all the
godly. f185
Let it be also taken into account, that the former is
accidental, while the latter is properly and strictly his office. Besides, it
deserves our notice, that Christ is not only called the support, but the
resurrection
of the godly: for the condition of men is not one in which it is safe for
them to remain. They must rise
from death, before they begin to
live.
35.
But also a sword shall pierce
thy own soul. This warning must have
contributed greatly to fortify the mind of the holy virgin, and to prevent her
from being overwhelmed with grief, when she came to those distressing struggles,
which she had to undergo. Though her faith was agitated and tormented by various
temptations, yet her sorest battle was with the cross: for Christ might appear
to be utterly destroyed. She was not overwhelmed with grief; but it would have
required a heart of stone not to be deeply wounded: for the patience of the
saints differs widely from stupidity.
That the thoughts of many hearts
may be revealed. There are some who
connect this clause with a part of the former verse, that Christ is
set for the ruin and for the
resurrection of many in Israel; and who
include in a parenthesis what we have just now explained about the
sword:
but it is better, I think, to refer it to the whole passage. The particle
that,
o[pwv
a]n, in this passage, does not strictly denote a
cause, but merely a consequence. When the light of the Gospel arises, and
persecutions immediately spring up, there is, at the same time, a disclosure of
affections of the heart, which had been hitherto concealed: for the
lurking-places of human dissimulation are so deep, that they easily remain
hidden till Christ comes.
f186 But Christ, by his light,
discloses every artifice, and unmasks hypocrisy; and to him is properly ascribed
the office of laying open the secrets of the heart. But when the cross is added
to doctrine it tries the hearts more to the quick. For those who have embraced
Christ by outward profession, often shrink from bearing the cross, and, when
they see the Church exposed to numerous calamities, easily desert their
post.
36.
And there was Anna, a
prophetess. Luke mentions not more than
two persons who received Christ; and this is intended to teach us, that whatever
belongs to God, however small it may be, ought to be preferred by us to
the whole world. The scribes and priests, no doubt, were then surrounded by
great splendor; but, as the Spirit of God, whose
presence
was not at all enjoyed by those rulers,
f187 dwelt in
Simeon
and
Anna,
those two persons are entitled to greater reverence than an immense
multitude of those whose pride is swelled by nothing but empty titles. For this
reason, the historian mentions Anna’s
age,
gives her the designation of
prophetess,
and, thirdly, bears a remarkable testimony to her piety, and to the holiness
and chastity of her life. These are the qualities that justly give to men weight
and estimation. And certainly none are led astray by the dazzling and empty
magnificence of outward show, but those who are drawn, by the vanity of their
own minds, to take pleasure in being deceived.
She had lived with her husband
seven years from her virginity. This is
intended to inform us, that she was a widow in the very prime of life. She had
married young, and shortly afterwards lost her husband; and the circumstance of
her not entering into a second marriage while she was in the rigor of her bodily
frame,
f188 is mentioned with the view of
heightening the commendation of her chastity. What follows, that
she was a widow of about
eighty-four years, may be explained in
two ways. Either that time had passed in her unmarried
state,
f189 or it was the whole period of her
life. If you reckon the
eighty-four
years as the time of her widowhood, it
will follow that she was more than a hundred years old: but I leave that matter
doubtful. The Spirit of prophecy still shone in a very few, who served as tokens
to attest the doctrine of the Law and the Jewish religion, till the coming of
Christ. In a state of society so dissolute, the elect of God needed such aids to
prevent them from being carried away.
37.
She departed not from the
temple.. This is a hyperbolical
expression; but the meaning is plain, that Anna was almost constantly in the
temple. Luke adds, that she
worshipped God with fastings and
prayers day and night. Hence we infer,
that she did not visit the temple for the mere purpose of performing the outward
service, but that she added to it the other exercises of piety. It deserves our
attention, that the same rule is not enjoined on all, and that all ought not to
be led indiscriminately to copy those performances, which are here commended in
a widow. Each person ought to make a judicious inquiry, what belongs to his own
calling. Silly ambition has filled the world with apes, from superstitious
persons seizing, with more “zeal” than “knowledges”
(<451002>Romans
10:2,) every thing that they hear praised in the saints: as if the distinction
of rank did not render a selection of employments necessary, that each person
may answer to his own calling. What is here related of
Anna,
Paul applies in a particular manner to widows,
(<540505>1
Timothy 5:5;) so that married people act a foolish part, if they regulate their
life by an unsuitable model.
But there still remains another doubt. Luke appears
to make
fastings
a part of divine
worship.
But we must observe, that of the acts which relate to worship, some are
simply required, and, as we are accustomed to say, are in themselves necessary;
while others are accessory, and have no other design than to aid the former
class. Prayers belong strictly to the worship of God. Fasting is a subordinate
aid, which is pleasing to God no farther than as it aids the earnestness and
fervency of prayer. We must hold by this rule, that the duties of men are to be
judged according as they are directed to a proper and lawful end. We must hold,
also, by this distinction, that
prayers
are a direct worship of God; while
fastings
are a part of worship only on account of their consequences. Nor is there
any reason to doubt, that the holy woman employed
fastings
as an excitement to bewail those calamities of the Church which then
existed.
38.
Made acknowledgment also to
God.
f190 The holy melody, which proceeded
from the lips of Simeon and Anna, is praised by Luke, in order that believers
may exhort each other to sing with one mouth the praises of God, and may give
mutual replies. When he says, that Anna
spake of him to all who looked
for redemption in Jerusalem, he again
points out the small number of the godly. For the substance of faith lay in this
expectation; and it is evident, that there were few who actually cherished it in
their minds.
39.
They returned to
Galilee. The departure to Egypt, I
readily acknowledge, came between those events; and the fact mentioned by Luke,
that they dwelt in their own city
Nazareth, is later, in point of time,
than the flight into Egypt, which Matthew relates,
(<400214>Matthew
2:14.) But if there was no impropriety in one Evangelist leaving out what is
related by another, there was nothing to prevent Luke from overleaping the
period which he did not intend to mention, and passing at once to the following
history. I am very far from agreeing with those who imagine that Joseph and
Mary, after having finished the sacrifice of purification, returned to
Bethlehem, to live there. Those persons are foolish enough to believe, that
Joseph had a settled abode in a place where he was so little known, that he was
unable to find a temporary lodging. Nor is it without a good reason that Luke
says, with respect both to Joseph and Mary, that
Nazareth
was their own
city. We infer from it, that he never
was an inhabitant of Bethlehem, though it was the place of his
extraction.
f191 As to the order of time, I shall
presently give a more full explanation.
MATTHEW
2:13-18
|
MATTHEW
2:13-18
|
|
13. And when they had departed,
lo, the angel of the Lord appeared in dreams to Joseph, saying, Arise, and take
the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I
have told thee: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
14. And he, when awake, took the young child and his mother
by night, and withdrew into Egypt: 15. And was there until
the death of Herod; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord
through the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my Son.
16. Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked by the Magi,
was exceedingly enraged, and sent to slay
f192
all the children that were in Bethlehem, and
all its boundaries,
f193
from two years old and under, according to the
time which he had inquired at the Magi. 17. Then was
fulfilled what had been spoken by Jeremiah the Prophet, when he says,
18. A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, wailing, and
much weeping: Rachel bewailing her children, and refused to receive consolation,
because they are not.
|
13.
And when they had
departed. How many days elapsed from the
departure of the Magi, till Joseph was ordered to flee into Egypt, is not known,
nor is it of much importance to inquire: only it is probable that the Lord
spared Mary, till she was so far recovered from childbirth as to be able to
perform the journey. It was a wonderful purpose of God, that he chose to
preserve his Son by flight. The mind of Joseph must have been harassed by
dangerous temptations, when he came to see that there was no hope but in flight:
for in flight there was no appearance of divine protection. Besides, it was very
difficult to reconcile the statement, that he who was to be the Savior of all,
could not be preserved without the exertion of a mortal man. But, in preserving
the life of his Son, God maintained such reserve, as to give some indications of
his heavenly power, and yet not to make it so manifest as to prevent it from
being concealed under the appearance of weakness: for the full time of
glorifying Christ openly was not yet come. The angel predicts an event which was
hidden, and unknown to men. That is an evident proof of divine guidance. But the
angel orders him to defend the life of the child by flight and exile. This
belongs to the weakness of flesh, to which Christ was
subjected.
We are here taught, that God has more than one way of
preserving his own people. Sometimes he makes astonishing displays of his power;
while at other times he employs dark coverings or shadows, from which feeble
rays of it escape. This wonderful method of preserving the Son of God under the
cross teaches us, that they act improperly who prescribe to God a fixed plan of
action. Let us permit him to advance our salvation by a diversity of methods;
and let us not refuse to be humbled, that he may more abundantly display his
glory. Above all, let us never avoid the cross, by which the Son of God himself
was trained from his earliest infancy. This flight is a part of the foolishness
of the cross, but it surpasses all the wisdom of the world. That he may appear
at his own time as the Savior of Judea, he is compelled to flee from it, and is
nourished by Egypt, from which nothing but what was destructive to the Church of
God had ever proceeded. Who would not have regarded with amazement such an
unexpected work of God?
Joseph immediately complies with the injunction of
the Angel. This is another proof of the certainty of the dream: for such
promptitude of obedience plainly shows, that he had no doubt whatever, that it
was God who had enjoined him to take flight. This eager haste may wear somewhat
of the aspect of distrust: for the flight
by
night had some appearance of alarm. But
it is not difficult to frame an excuse. He saw that God had appointed a method
of safety which was low and mean: and he concludes that he is at liberty to take
flight in such a state of alarm as is commonly produced by extreme danger. Our
fear ought always to be regulated by the divine intimations. If it agrees with
them, it will not be opposed to faith.
Be thou there until I have told
thee. By these words the Angel declares,
that the life of the child will, even in future, be the object of the divine
care. Joseph needed to be thus strengthened, so as to conclude with certainty,
that God would not only conduct him in the journey, but that, during his
banishment, God would be his constant protector. And in this way God was pleased
to allay many anxieties, with which the heart of the good man must have been
perplexed, so that he enjoyed serenity of mind during his sojourn in Egypt. But
for this, not a moment would have passed without numerous temptations, when he
saw himself excluded not only from the inheritance promised by God to all his
saints,—but from the temple, from sacrifices, from a public profession of
his faiths,—and was living among the worst enemies of God, and in a deep
gulf of superstitions. He carried with him, indeed, in the person of the child,
all the blessings which the Fathers had hoped to enjoy, or which the Lord had
promised to them: but as he had not yet made such proficiency in faith, and in
the knowledge of Christ, he needed to be restrained by this injunction,
Be thou there until I have told
thee, that he might not be displeased at
languishing in banishment from his country among the
Egyptians.
15.
Out of Egypt have I called my
Son. Matthew says that a prediction was
fulfilled. Some have thought, that the intention of the prophet was different
from what is here stated, and have supposed the meaning to be, that the Jews act
foolishly in opposing and endeavoring to oppress the Son of God, because the
Father hath called him out of
Egypt. In this way, they grievously
pervert the words of the prophet,
(<281101>Hosea
11:1,) the design of which is, to establish a charge of ingratitude against the
Jews, who, from their earliest infancy, and from the commencement of their
history, had found God to be a kind and generous Father, and yet were provoking
him by fresh offenses. Beyond all question, the passage ought not to be
restricted to the person of Christ: and yet it is not tortured by Matthew, but
skilfully applied to the matter in hand.
The words of the prophet ought to be thus
interpreted: “When Israel was yet a child, I brought him out of that
wretched bondage in which he had been plunged. He was formerly like a dead man,
and Egypt served him for a grave; but I drew him out of it as from the womb, and
brought him into the light of life.” And justly does the Lord speak in
this manner; for that deliverance was a sort of birth of the nation. Then were
openly produced letters of adoption, when, by the promulgation of the law, they
became “the Lord’s portion,”
(<053209>Deuteronomy
32:9,) “a royal priesthood, and a holy nation,”
(<600209>1
Peter 2:9;) when they were separated from the other nations, and when, in short,
God “set up his tabernacle”
(<032611>Leviticus
26:11) to dwell in the midst of them. The words of the prophet import, that the
nation was rescued from Egypt as from a deep whirlpool of death. Now, what was
the redemption brought by Christ, but a resurrection from the dead, and the
commencement of a new life? The light of salvation had been almost extinguished,
when God begat the Church anew in the person of Christ. Then did the Church come
out of Egypt in its head, as the whole body had been formerly brought
out.
This analogy prevents us from thinking it strange,
that any part of Christ’s childhood was passed in Egypt. The grace and
power of God became more illustrious, and his wonderful purpose was more
distinctly seen, when light came out of darkness, and life out of hell.
Otherwise, the sense of the flesh might have broken out here in contemptuous
language, “Truly a Redeemer is to come out of
Egypt!”
f194 Matthew therefore reminds us,
that it is no strange or unwonted occurrence for God to call his Son out of that
country; and that it serves rather to confirm our faith, that, as on a former
occasion, so now again, the Church of God comes out of Egypt. There is this
difference, however, between the two cases. The whole nation was formerly shut
up in the prison of Egypt; while, in the second redemption, it was Christ, the
head of the Church alone, who was concealed there, but who carried the salvation
and life of all shut up in his own
person.
16.
Then Herod when he
saw. Matthew speaks according to what
Herod felt and thought about the matter. He believed that the Magi had deceived
him, because they did not choose to take part in his wicked cruelty. He was
rather taken in his own trickery,—in his base pretense, that he too
intended to pay homage to the new King.
Josephus makes no mention of this history. The only
writer who mentions it is Macrobius, in the Second Book of his
Saturnalia,
where, relating the jokes and taunts of Augustus, he says: When he heard
that, by Herod’s command, the children in Syria under two years of age had
been slain, and that his own son had been slain among the crowd, “I would
rather,” said he, “have been Herod’s hog than his son.”
But the authority of Matthew alone is abundantly sufficient for us. Josephus
certainly ought not to have passed over a crime so worthy of being put on
record. But there is the less reason to wonder that he says nothing about the
infants; for he passes lightly over, and expresses in obscure language, an
instance of Herod’s cruelty not less shocking, which took place about the
same time, when he put to death all the Judges, who were called the Sanhedrim,
that hardly a remnant might remain of the stock of David. It was the same dread,
I have no doubt, that impelled him to both of these murders.
There is some uncertainty about the
date.
f195 Matthew says, that they were
slain from two years old and
under, according to the time which he had inquired at the
Magi: from which we may infer that
Christ had then reached that age, or at least was not far from being two years
old. Some go farther, and conclude that Christ was about that age at the time
when the Magi came. But I contend that the one does not follow from the other.
With what terror Herod was seized when the report was widely spread about a new
king who had been borne,
f196 we have lately seen. Fear
prevented him at that time from employing a traitor, in a secret manner, to make
an investigation.
f197 There is no reason to wonder that
he was restrained, for some time, from the commission of a butchery so hateful
and shocking, particularly while the report about the arrival of the Magi was
still
recent.
It is certainly probable, that he revolved the crime in his mind, but
delayed it till a convenient opportunity should occur. It is even possible, that
he first murdered the Judges, in order to deprive the people of their leaders,
and thus to compel them to look upon the crime as one for which there was no
remedy. f198
We may now conclude it to be a frivolous argument, on
which those persons rest, who argue, that Christ was two years old when he was
worshipped by the Magi, because,
according to the time when the
star appeared, Herod slew the children
who were a little below two years old. Such persons take for granted, without
any proper ground, that the star did not appear till after that the Virgin had
brought forth her child. It is far more probable, that they had been warned
early, and that they undertook the journey close upon the time of the birth of
Christ, that they might see the child when lately born, in the cradle, or in his
mother’s lap. It is a very childish imagination that, because they came
from an unknown country, and almost from another world, they had spent about two
years on the road. The conjectures stated by
Osiander
f199 are too absurd to need
refutation.
But there is no inconsistency in the thread of the
story which I propose,—that the Magi came when the period of child-bearing
was not yet over, and inquired after
a king who had been
born, not after one who was already two
years old; that, after they had returned to their own country, Joseph fled by
night, but still in passing discharged a pious duty at Jerusalem, (for in so
populous a city, where there was a constant influx of strangers from every
quarter, he might be secure from danger;) that, after he had departed to Egypt,
Herod began to think seriously about his own danger, and the ulcer of revenge,
which he had nourished in his heart for more than a year and half, at length
broke out. The adverb
then
(to>te)
does not always denote in Scripture uninterrupted
time,
f200 but frequently occurs, when there
is a great distance between the
events.
18. A
voice was heard in
Ramah. It is certain that the prophet
describes
(<243115>Jeremiah
31:15) the destruction of the tribe of Benjamin, which took place in his time:
for he had foretold that the tribe of Judah would be cut off, to which was added
the half of the tribe of Benjamin. He puts the mourning into the mouth of
Rachel, who had been long dead. This is a personification,
(proswpopoii`a,)
which has a powerful influence in moving the affections. It was not for the
mere purpose of ornamenting his style, that Jeremiah employed rhetorical
embellishments. There was no other way of correcting the hardness and stupidity
of the living, than by arousing the dead, as it were, from their graves, to
bewail those divine chastisements, which were commonly treated with derision.
The prediction of Jeremiah having been accomplished at that time, Matthew does
not mean that it foretold what Herod would do, but that the coming of Christ
occasioned a renewal of that mourning, which had been experienced, many
centuries before, by the tribe of Benjamin.
He intended thus to meet a prejudice which might
disturb and shake pious minds. It might be supposed, that no salvation could be
expected from him, on whose account, as soon as he was born, infants were
murdered; nay more, that it was an unfavorable and disastrous omen, that the
birth of Christ kindled a stronger flame of cruelty than usually burns amidst
the most inveterate wars. But as Jeremiah promises a restoration, where a nation
has been cut off, down to their little children, so Matthew reminds his readers,
that this massacre would not prevent Christ from appearing shortly afterwards as
the Redeemer of the whole nation: for we know that the whole chapter in
Jeremiah, in which those words occur, is filled with the most delightful
consolations. Immediately after the mournful complaint, he
adds,
“Refrain thy voice
from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith
the Lord, and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. And there is
hope in thine end, saith the Lord, that thy children shall come again to thine
own border,”
(<243116>Jeremiah
31:16, 17.)
Such was the resemblance between the former calamity
which the tribe of Benjamin had sustained, and the second calamity, which is
here recorded. Both were a prelude of the salvation which was shortly to
arrive. f201
MATTHEW
2:19-23
|
MATTHEW
2:19-23
|
|
19. But when Herod was dead, lo,
the angel of the Lord appeareth, by a dream, to Joseph in Egypt,
20. Saying, Arise, and take the child and his mother, and go
into the land of Israel: for they are dead who sought the
life
f202
, of the child. 21. And he
rose and took
f203
the child and his mother, and came into the
land of Israel. 22. But when he had heard that Archelaus was
reigning in Judea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither:
but, warned by a heavenly communication through a dream, he withdrew into the
parts of Galilee. 23. Having come there, he dwelt in the
city
f204
which is called Nazareth, that what had been
spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, He shall be called a
Nazarene.
|
19.
But when Herod was
dead. These words show the perseverance
of Joseph’s faith. He kept his feet firm in Egypt, till he was recalled to
his native country by a command of God. We see, at the same time, that the Lord
never disappoints his own people, but renders them seasonable aid. It is
probable that Joseph returned from Egypt immediately after the death of Herod,
before Augustus Caesar had issued his decree, appointing Archelaus to be
governor of Judea. Having been declared by his father’s will to be
successor to the throne, he undertook the whole charge of the government, but
abstained from taking the title of king, saying that this depended on the will
and pleasure of Caesar. He afterwards went to Rome, and obtained confirmation;
only the name of king was refused, until he had merited it by his actions. The
governor of Galilee was Philip, a man of gentle disposition, and almost like a
private individual. Joseph complied with the suggestion of the angel, because,
under a prince who had no delight in shedding blood, and who treated his
subjects with mildness, there was less danger.
We must always bear in mind the purpose of God, in
training his Son, from the commencement, under the discipline of the cross,
because this was the way in which he was to redeem his Church. He bore our
infirmities, and was exposed to dangers and to fears, that he might deliver his
Church from them by his divine power, and might bestow upon it everlasting
peace. His danger was our safety: his fear was our confidence. Not that he ever
in his life felt alarm; but as he was surrounded, on every hand, by the fear of
Joseph and Mary, he may be justly said to have taken upon him our fears, that he
might procure for us assured confidence.
23.
He shall be called a
Nazarene. Matthew does not derive
Nazarene
from
Nazareth,
as if this were its strict and proper etymology, but only makes an allusion.
The word
ryzn,
or
Nazarite,
signifies holy and devoted to God, and is derived from
rzn,
to separate. The noun
rzn,
indeed, signifies a flower:
f205 but Matthew refers, beyond
all doubt, to the former meaning. For we nowhere read that Nazarites
meant blooming or flourishing, but persons who were
consecrated to God, according to the directions given by the Law,
(Numbers 6.) The meaning is: though it was by fear that Joseph was driven into a
corner of Galilee, yet God had a higher design, and appointed
the city of
Nazareth as the place of Christ’s
residence, that he might justly be called a
Nazarite.
But it is asked, who are the prophets that gave this name to Christ? for
there is no passage to be found that answers to the quotation. Some think it a
sufficient answer, that Scripture frequently calls him
Holy:
but that is a very poor explanation. For Matthew, as we perceive, makes an
express reference to the very word, and to the ancient Nazarites, whose holiness
was of a peculiar character. He tells us, that what was then shadowed out in the
Nazarites, who were, in some sense, selected as the first-fruits to God, must
have been fulfilled in the person of Christ.
But it remains to be seen, in what part of Scripture
the prophets have stated that this name would be given to Christ. Chrysostom,
finding himself unable to loose the knot, cuts it by saying, that many books of
the prophets have perished. But this answer has no probability: for, though the
Lord, in order to punish the indifference of his ancient people, deprived them
of some part of Scripture, or left out what was less necessary, yet, since the
coming of Christ, no part of it has been lost. In support of that view, a
strange blunder has been made, by quoting a passage of Josephus, in which he
states that Ezekiel left two books: for Ezekiel’s prophecy of a new temple
and kingdom is manifestly distinct from his other predictions, and may be said
to form a new work. But if all the books of Scripture which were extant in the
time of Matthew, remain entire to the present day, we must find somewhere the
passage quoted from the prophets.
Bucer
f206 has explained it, I think,
more correctly than any other writer. He thinks that the reference is to a
passage in the Book of Judges: The child shall be a Nazarite unto God from
the womb,
(<071305>Judges
13:5.) These words, no doubt, were spoken with regard to Samson. But Samson is
called the “Redeemer” or
“Deliverer”
f207 of the people, only because he
was a figure of Christ, and because the salvation, which was accomplished by his
instrumentality, was a sort of prelude of the full salvation, which was at
length exhibited to the world by the Son of
God. f208
All that Scripture predicts, in a favorable manner, about Samson, may justly
be applied to Christ. To express it more clearly, Christ is the original model:
Samson is the inferior antitype.
f209 When he assumed the character of
a Redeemer,
f210 we ought to understand,
that none of the titles bestowed on that illustrious and truly divine office
apply so strictly to himself as to Christ: for the fathers did but taste the
grace of redemption, which we have been permitted to receive fully in
Christ.
Matthew uses the word
prophets
in the plural number. This may easily be excused: for the Book of Judges was
composed by many
prophets.
But I think that what is here said about
the
prophets has a still wider reference.
For Joseph, who was a temporal Savior of the Church, and was, in many respects,
a figure, or rather a lively image of Christ, is called
a
Nazarite of his brethren,
f211
(<014926>Genesis
49:26;
<053316>Deuteronomy
33:16.) God determined that the distinguished honor, of which he had given a
specimen in Joseph, should shine again in Samson, and gave him the name of
Nazarite,
that believers, having received those early instructions, might look more
earnestly at the Redeemer who was to come, who was to be separated from
all,
“That he might be
the first-born among many
brethren,”
(<450829>Romans
8:29.)
LUKE 2:40-47
|
LUKE
2:40-47
|
|
40. And the child grew, and was
invigorated in spirit, and was full of wisdom, and the grace of God was upon
him. 41. And his parents went every year to Jerusalem, to the
feast of the Passover. 42. And when he
arrived
f212
at twelve years, as they went up to Jerusalem,
according to the custom of the feast, 43. And when the days
were finished, while they were returning, the child Jesus remained at Jerusalem,
and his parents did not know it.
f213
44. And thinking that he was
in the company, they came a day's journey, and sought him among their relatives
and acquaintances. 45. And when they did not find him, they
returned to Jerusalem, seeking him. 46. And it happened,
after three days, they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the
doctors, hearing and putting questions to them: 47. And all
who heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.
|
40.
And the child
grew. From the infancy of Christ Matthew
passes immediately to his manifestation.
f214 Luke relates here a single fact,
which well deserved to be recorded. In the midst of his boyhood, Christ gave a
specimen of his future office, or at least indicated, by a single attempt, what
he would afterwards be. The child
grew, and was invigorated in spirit.
These words show, that the endowments of his mind grew with his
age. f215
Hence we infer, that this progress, or advancement, relates to his human
nature: for the Divine nature could receive no increase.
But a question arises. From the time that he was
conceived in his mother’s womb, did he not abound in all fullness of
spiritual gifts? for it appears absurd to say, that the Son of God wanted any
thing that was necessary to perfection. The reply is easy. If it takes nothing
from his glory, that he was altogether, emptied,”
(eJauto<n
ejke>nwse,
<501706>Philippians
2:6,) neither does it degrade him, that he chose not only to grow in body, but
to make progress in mind. And certainly when the Apostle declares, that,
“in all things he was made like unto his
brethren,”(<580217>Hebrews
2:17,) and “was in all points tempted like as we are, sin excepted,”
(<580415>Hebrews
4:15,) he no doubt includes, that his soul was subject to ignorance. There is
only this difference between us and him, that the weaknesses which press upon
us, by a necessity which we cannot avoid, were undertaken by him voluntarily,
and of his own accord. Christ received, in his human nature, according to his
age and capacity, an increase of the free gifts of the
Spirit,
f216 that “out of his
fullness”
(<430116>John
1:16) he may pour them out upon us; for we draw grace out of his
grace.
Some excessively timid persons restrict what is here
said to outward appearance, and make the meaning to be, that Christ appeared to
make progress, though, in point of fact, no addition was made to his knowledge.
But the words have a quite different meaning, and this mistaken opinion is still
more fully refuted by what Luke shortly afterwards adds, that
he grew in age and wisdom with
God and man, (ver. 52.) We
are not at liberty to suppose, that knowledge lay concealed in Christ, and made
its appearance in him in progress of time. There is no doubt whatever, that it
was the design of God to express in plain terms, how truly and completely
Christ, in taking upon him our flesh, did all that was necessary to effect his
brotherly union with men.
f217
And yet we do not in this way suppose a double
Christ:
f218 for, though
God
and
man
are united in one person, it does not follow, that the human nature received
what was peculiar to the Divine nature: but, so far as was necessary for
our salvation, the Son of God kept his divine power concealed. What Irenaeus
says, that his Divine nature was quiescent when he
suffered,
f219 I understand to refer, not only
to bodily death, but to that amazing distress and agony of soul, which drew from
him the complaint, “My God,
my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
(<402746>Matthew
27:46.) In a word, if we do not choose to deny, that Christ was made a real
man, we ought not to be ashamed to acknowledge, that he voluntarily took upon
him everything that is inseparable from human nature.
It is a foolish objection, that ignorance does not
apply to Christ, because it is the punishment of sin: for the same thing might
be said of death. Scripture declares, on the contrary, that he performed the
office of Mediator: for all the punishment which we deserved was transferred
from us to him.
f220 Besides, it is a foolish mistake
to say, that ignorance is the punishment of sin. For we must not suppose that
Adam, while he remained in innocence, knew all things. Angels also are, to some
extent, ignorant, and yet they do not endure the punishment of
sin.
A more refined argument is employed by some, that
there was no ignorance in Christ, because ignorance is sin. But those persons
assume a principle which is altogether false and groundless: otherwise, the
angels must either be equal to God, or they must be
sinful.
f221 There is no doubt a sinful
blindness of the human mind, which is justly reckoned a part of original sin:
but here we ascribe to Christ no other ignorance than what may fall upon a man
who is pure from every taint of sin.
He was invigorated in spirit, and
was full of wisdom. Luke thus declares,
that whatever wisdom exists among men, and receives daily accessions, flows from
that single fountain, from the Spirit of God. The following phrase is more
general, and the grace of God was
upon him: for it includes all the
excellence of every description that shone brightly in
Christ.
41.
And his parents went every
year to Jerusalem. It is mentioned in
commendation of the piety of Mary and Joseph, that they gave diligent attendance
to the outward worship of God. It was not of their own accord, but by a divine
command, that they undertook this annual journey. The law enjoins the, males
“only to, appear before the Lord,”
(<022317>Exodus
23:17.) This arrangement does not entirely exclude females, but spares them by
an exercise of kindness. This mark distinguishes the true religion from vain and
wicked superstitions. The former confines itself within the limits of obedience
to God, and of compliance with the enactments of his law. The latter wander, at
their own pleasure, beyond the limits of God’s word, without any fixed
rule. The worship of the temple was, no doubt, infected with many corruptions,
the priesthood was sold for money, and doctrine was involved in many errors.
Yet, as legal ceremonies were still in force, and the outward rite of sacrifice
was observed as it is laid down in the law, believers were bound to perform such
exercises in testimony of their faith. The name
father
is here given to Joseph, not with strict accuracy, but according to the
opinion generally entertained respecting
him.
44.
And thinking that he was in
the company. Many passages of Scripture
show plainly, that those who came from a distance, at the festivals, to worship
in the temple, were accustomed to travel in
companies.
There is no reason, therefore, to wonder that, on the first day, Joseph and
Mary were less anxious about the child; and their subsequent conduct shows that
this was not owing to indolence or
carelessness.
46.
Sitting in the midst of the
doctors. Rays of divine brightness must
have evidently shone in this child: otherwise those haughty men would not have
permitted him to sit along with them. Though it is probable that he occupied a
lower seat, and not the rank of the doctors, yet such disdainful men would not
have condescended to give him an audience in a public assembly, if some divine
power had not constrained them. This was a sort of prelude to his public
calling, the full time of which had not yet arrived. In this way, however, he
intended to give nothing more than a taste, which would immediately have faded
from the recollection of men, had not Mary
kept
it for us laid up in her
heart, (ver. 19, 51,) to
bring it out afterwards, along with other treasures, for the use of all the
godly.
47.
And all who heard
him. Two things here claim our
attention. All who heard him were
astonished: for they reckoned it a
miracle, that a child should frame his questions with such correctness and
propriety. Again, they
heard
Christ, and thus acted the part rather of scholars than of teachers. He had
not yet been called by the Father, to avow himself a public teacher of the
Church, and therefore satisfied himself with putting modest questions to the
doctors. Yet there is no room to doubt that, in this first attempt, he already
began to tax their perverse way of teaching: for what Luke afterwards says about
answers,
I consider as denoting, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, any kind of
discourse.
LUKE 2:48-52
|
LUKE
2:48-52
|
|
48. And when they saw him, they
wondered; and his mother said to him, Son, why hast thou done thus to us? Lo,
thy father and I grieving were seeking for thee. 49. And he
saith to them, Why is it that ye were seeking me? Did ye not know that I must be
in those things which belong to my Father? 50. And they did
not understand the discourse which he spoke to them. 51. And
he went down with them, and came to Nazareth. And he was subject to them: but
his mother kept all these words in her heart. 52. And Jesus
made progress in wisdom and age, and in favor with God and men.
|
48.
And his mother said to
him. Those who think that the holy
virgin spake in this manner, for the purpose of showing her authority, are, in
my opinion, mistaken. It is even possible, that it was not till they were apart,
and the witnesses had withdrawn, that she began to expostulate with her son,
after they had left the assembly. However that may be, this complaint was not
the result of ambition, but was the expression of grief, which had lasted three
days.
f222 Yet the manner of her complaint,
as if she had received an injury, shows how ready we are by nature to defend our
own rights, even without paying regard to God. The holy virgin would a thousand
times
f223 rather have died, than
deliberately preferred herself to God: but, in the indulgence of a
mother’s grief, she falls into it through inadvertency. And undoubtedly
this example warns us, how jealous we ought to be of all the affections of the
flesh, and what care we ought to exercise, lest, by being too tenacious of our
rights, and following our own desires, we defraud God of his
honor.
49.
Did ye not
know? Our Lord justly blames his mother,
though he does it in a gentle and indirect manner. The amount of what he says
is, that the duty which he owes to God his Father, ought to be immeasurably
preferred to all human duties; and that, consequently, earthly parents do wrong
in taking it amiss, that they have been neglected in comparison of God. And
hence we may infer the general doctrine, that whatever we owe to men must yield
to the first table of the law, that God’s authority over us may remain
untouched.
f224 Thus we ought to obey kings, and
parents, and masters,
f225 but only in subjection to God:
that is, we must not, for the sake of men, lessen or take away any thing from
God. And, indeed, a regard to the superior claims of God does not imply a
violation of the duties which we owe to men.
In those things which belong to my
Father. This expression intimates, that
there is something about him greater than man. It points out also the chief
design of his being sent into the world, which was, that he might discharge the
office enjoined upon him by his heavenly Father. But is it not astonishing, that
Joseph and Mary did not
understand this answer, who had been
instructed by many proofs, that Jesus is the Son of God? I reply: Though they
were not wholly unacquainted with Christ’s heavenly origin, yet they did
not comprehend, in every respect, how he was intent on executing his heavenly
Father’s commands: for his calling had not yet been expressly revealed to
them. Mary kept in her
heart those things which she did not
fully understand. Let us learn from this, to receive with reverence, and
to lay
up in our minds, (like the seed, which
is allowed to remain for some time under grounds) those mysteries of God which
exceed our capacity.
51.
And he was subject to
them. It was for our salvation that
Christ took upon him this low estates,—that the Lord and head of angels
voluntarily became subject
to mortal creatures. Such was the
purpose of God, that Christ should remain, for some time, under a shadow,
beating the name of Joseph. Though this subjection, on the part of Christ, arose
from no necessity which he could not have avoided, yet, as he had taken upon him
human nature on the condition of being subject to parents, and had assumed the
character both of a man and of a servants,—with respect to the office of
Redeemer, this was his lawful condition. The more cheerfully, on this account,
ought every one to bear the yoke which the Lord has been pleased to lay upon
him. f226
MATTHEW 3:1-6; MARK 1:1-6;
LUKE 3:1-6
|
MATTHEW
3:1-6
|
MARK
1:1-6
|
LUKE
3:1-6
|
|
1. Now in those days John the
Baptist comes, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, 2. And
saying, Repent:
f227
for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,
3. For this is he, of whom it has been spoken by Isaiah the
prophet, who says, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of
the Lord, make his paths straight. 4. And the same John had
his raiment of camel’s hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and
his meat was locusts and wild honey. 5. Then went out to him
Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan.
6. And were baptized in Jordan by him, confessing their
sins.
|
1. The beginning of the gospel of
Jesus Christ, the Son of God; 2. As it is written in the
prophets, Lo, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way
before thee. 3. The voice of one crying in the wilderness,
Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. 4. John
was baptizing in the wilderness, preaching the baptism of repentance, for the
forgiveness of sins. 5. And all the country of Judea, and the
inhabitants of Jerusalem, went out to him, and were all baptized by him in the
river Jordan, confessing their sins. 6. And John was clothed
with camel’s hair, and with a leathern girdle about his loins, and he ate
locusts and wild honey.
|
1. And in the fifteenth year of
the reign of Tiberius Cesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and
Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the
country of Iturea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene,
2. While Annas and Caiaphas were high priests, the word of
the Lord came to John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness.
3. And he came into all the country surrounding Jordan,
preaching the baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
4. As it is written in the book of the words of the prophet
Isaiah, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare the way of
the Lord, make his paths straight. 5. Every valley shall be
filled up, and every mountain and hill shall be laid low, and those things which
are crooked shall become straight, and those which are rough shall become plain
ways. 6. And all flesh shall see the salvation of
God.
|
<410101>Mark
1:1. The beginning of the
Gospel. Though what we have hitherto
taken out of Matthew and Luke is a part of
the
Gospel, yet it is not without reason
that Mark makes the beginning of
the Gospel to be the preaching of John
the Baptist. For the Law and the Prophets then came to an end,
(<430117>John
1:17.) “The Law and the
Prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is
preached,”
(<421616>Luke
16:16.) And with this agrees most fully the quotation which he makes from
the Prophet Malachi, (3:1.) In order to inflame the minds of his people with a
stronger desire of the promised salvation, the Lord had determined to leave
them, for a time, without new prophecies. We know that the last of the true and
lawful prophets was Malachi.
That the Jews, in the meantime, may not faint with
hunger, he exhorts them to continue under the Law of Moses, until the promised
redemption appear. He mentions
the
law only,
(<430117>John
1:17,) because the doctrine of the Prophets was not separate from the law, but
was merely an appendage and fuller exposition of it, that the form of government
in the Church might depend entirely on the Law. It is no new or uncommon thing
in Scripture, to include the Prophets under the name of
the
Law: for they were all related to it as
their fountain or design. The Gospel was not an inferior appendage to the Law,.
but a new form of instruction, by which the former was set
aside.
Malachi, distinguishing the two conditions of the
Church, places the one under the Law, and commences the other with the preaching
of John. He unquestionably describes the Baptist, when he says,
“Behold, I send my messenger,”
(<390301>Malachi
3:1:) for, as we have already said, that passage lays down an express
distinction between the Law and the new order and condition of the Church. With
the same view he had said a little before, (which is quoted by Mark, (9:13;) for
the passages are quite similar,) “Behold, I send you Elijah the Prophet,
before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord,”
(<390405>Malachi
4:5.) Again,
“Behold, I send my
messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek,
shall suddenly come to his temple,”
(<390301>Malachi
3:1.)
In both passages, the Lord promises a better
condition of his Church than had existed under the Law, and this unquestionably
points out the beginning of the
Gospel. But
before the Lord
came to restore the Church, a forerunner
or herald was to come, and announce that he was at hand. Hence we infer, that
the abrogation of the Law, and
the beginning of the
Gospel, strictly speaking, took place
when John began to preach.
The Evangelist John presents to us Christ clothed in
flesh, “the Word made flesh,”
(<430114>John
1:14;) so that his birth and the whole history of his appearance are included in
the Gospel. But here Mark inquires, when the Gospel began to be published, and,
therefore, properly begins with John, who was its first minister. And with this
view the Heavenly Father chose that the life of his Son should be buried, as it
were, in silence, until the time of the full revelation arrived. For it did not
happen without the undoubted Providence of God, that the Evangelists leave out
the whole period which Christ spent in private, and pass at once from his
earliest infancy to his thirtieth year, when he was openly exhibited to the
world, invested with his public character as a Redeemer; Luke excepted, who
slightly touches one indication of his future calling, which occurred about his
twelfth year,
(<420242>Luke
2:42.)
It had a very close connection with this object, that
we should be informed, first, that Christ is a true man,
(<430114>John
1:14,) and next, that he is
“the Son of Abraham and of
David,”
(<400101>Matthew
1:1;) as to both of which, the Lord has been pleased to give us an
attestation. The other matters which we have examined, relating to
“the
shepherds,”
(<420208>Luke
2:8,) the
“Magi,”
(<400201>Matthew
2:1,) and
“Simeon,”
(<420225>Luke
2:25,) were intended to prove his Divinity. What Luke relates about John and
his father Zacharias,
(<420105>Luke
1:5,) was a sort of preparation for the Gospel.
There is no impropriety in the change of the person
which is here made, in quoting the words of Malachi. According to the prophet,
God says, I send my messenger,
and he shall prepare the way BEFORE ME.
Mark introduces God as addressing the Son,
Behold, I send my messenger
before thy face, who shall prepare thy way
BEFORE THEE. But we see that Mark had no other intention, than to express
more clearly the prophet’s meaning. Mark designates Christ
the Son of
God. The other Evangelists testify that
he was born of the seed of Abraham and David, and therefore was
the Son of
man,
(<400820>Matthew
8:20.) But Mark shows us, that no redemption is to be expected but from
the Son of
God.
<400301>Matthew
3:1. Now in those
days.
<420301>Luke
3:1. And in the fifteenth
year. It could not be gathered from
Matthew and Mark in what year of his age John began to preach: but Luke shows
sufficiently, that he was about thirty years of age. The ancient writers of the
Church are almost unanimously agreed, that he was born fifteen years before the
death of Augustus. His successor Tiberius had held the government of the Roman
Empire for fifteen years, when the same John began to preach. In this way are
made up the thirty years which I have mentioned. Hence it follows, that he did
not long discharge the office of teacher, but, in a short time, gave way to
Christ; for we shall soon find, that Christ also was baptized in the thirtieth
year of his age, when he was immediately installed into the discharge of his
public office. Now as John, the morning-star, or dawn, was immediately followed
by Christ, “the Sun of Righteousness,”
(<390402>Malachi
4:2,) there is no reason to wonder, that John disappeared, in order that Christ
might shine alone in greater brightness.
See
Calvin on “Mt
3:1”
<420301>Luke
3:1. When Pontius Pilate was
governor of Judea. It is probable that
this was the second year of Pilate’s government: for since Tiberius had
held the reins of government, he had, as Josephus informs us, (xviii. 2:2,)
appointed Valerius Gratus to be governor of Judea, in room of Annius Rufus. This
change might take place in his second year. The same Josephus writes, that
Valerius was governor of Judea for “eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came
as his successor,” (Ant. 18:2:2.) Pilate, therefore, had governed the
province for two years, when John began to preach the Gospel. This Herod, whom
Luke makes tetrarch of Judea, was the second heir of Herod the Great, and
succeeded to his father by will. Archelaus had received the ethnarchy of Judea,
but, when he was banished to Vienna (Jos. Wars, 2:vii. 3) by Augustus, that
portion fell into the hands of the Romans. Luke mentions here two sons of
Herod,—Herod Antipas, who had been made tetrarch of Galilee, and governed
Samaria and Peraea,—and Philip, who was tetrarch of Trachonitis and
Iturea, and reigned from the sea of Tiberias, or Gennesareth, to the foot of
Lebanon, which is the source of the river Jordan.
Lysanias has been falsely supposed to be the son of
Ptolemy Mennaeus, King of Chalcis, who had been long before put to death by
Cleopatra, about thirty years before the birth of Christ, as Josephus relates,
(Ant. 15:4:1.) He could hardly even be the grandson of Ptolemy, who, as the same
Josephus records, kindled the Parthian war, (Wars, 1:xiii. 1;) for then he must
have been more than sixty years of age at the time of which Luke speaks.
Besides, as it was under Antigonus that the Parthian war commenced, he must even
then have been a full-grown man. Now Ptolemy Mennaeus died not long after the
murder of Julius Caesar, during the triumvirate of Lepidus, Antony, and
Octavius, (Jos. Wars, 1:xiii. 1.) But as this grandson of Ptolemy bore the name
of Lysanias as well as his father, he might have left a son who had the same
surname. Meanwhile, there can be no hesitation in rejecting the error of those
who make Lysanias to live sixty years after he had been slain by
Cleopatra.
The word
Tetrarch
is here used in a sense not quite accurate, as if the whole country had been
divided into four parts. But as at first there was a fourfold division into
districts, so afterwards, when other changes took place, the names
Tetrarch
and
Tetrarchies
were retained by way of honor. In this sense Pliny enumerates seventeen
tetrarchies
of one
country.
<420302>Luke
3:2. Annas and Caiaphas being
the high priests. It is certain, that
there never were two persons who held the office of
high
priest at the same time. Josephus
states, that Valerius Gratus made Caiaphas
high priest,
a short time before he left the
government. During the time that Pilate was governor of Judea, Josephus does not
speak of him as having made any change in this
respect;
f228 but, on the contrary, states
that, when Pilate had been recalled from the government, and sent to plead his
cause at Rome, Vitellius, who was at that time governor of Syria, reduced
Caiaphas to a private rank, and transferred the high priesthood to Jonathan, the
son of Ananus, (Ant. 18:4:3.) When Luke says that there were two
high
priests, we must not understand him to
mean, that both held the same title, but that the honor of the priesthood was
partly shared with him by Annas his father-in-law. Luke’s narrative
indicates such a state of trouble and confusion, that, though there was not more
than one person who was actually
high
priest, the sacred office was torn in
pieces by ambition and tyranny.
The word of the Lord came upon
John. Before relating, as the other
Evangelists do, that John began to exercise his office of teaching, Luke asserts
that he was divinely called to that office: and he does so, in order to assure
us, that the ministry of John carried undoubted authority. Why the interpreters
have chosen to translate the word,
ejpi<
jIwa>nnhn, UPON
John,
instead of TO
John,
I do not see: but because there is no ambiguity as to the meaning, that this
commission was entrusted to him, and that he received a command to preach, I
have followed the received version. Hence infer, that there are no regular
teachers, but those on whom God has conferred the office; and that it is not
enough to have the word of God, if there be not likewise a special
calling.
Matthew and Mark do not speak of the preaching of
John as extending beyond the
wilderness, while Luke says, that he
came into all the country around
Jordan. These statements may be
reconciled by observing, that John discharged the office of teaching among the
neighbors, with whom he dwelt; but that his Gospel spread more widely, and
became known in many places, so that the report of it, in a short time, reached
Jerusalem. Indeed, the whole of that tract of the Jordan might be called a
wilderness:
for the word does not mean “a solitude,” but “a rough, and
mountainous, and thinly inhabited
district.”
<400302>Matthew
3:2. Repent
ye. Matthew differs from the other two
Evangelists in this respect, that he relates the substance of John’s
doctrine, as uttered by John himself, while they relate it in their own words;
though Mark has one word more than Luke: for he says,
he
came BAPTIZING,
and preaching the baptism of
repentance. But in substance there is
the most perfect agreement: for they all connect
repentance
with the forgiveness of sins.
The kingdom of God among men is nothing
else than a restoration to a happy life; or, in other words, it is true and
everlasting happiness. When John says, that
the kingdom of God is at
hand, his meaning is, that men, who were
alienated from the righteousness of God, and banished from
the kingdom of
heaven, must be again gathered to God,
and live under his guidance. This is accomplished by a free adoption and
the forgiveness of
sins, by which he reconciles to himself
those who were unworthy. In a word, the kingdom of heaven is nothing else than
“newness of life,”
(<450604>Romans
6:4,) by which God restores us to the hope of a blessed immortality. Having
rescued us from the bondage of sin and death, he claims us as his own; that,
even while our pilgrimage on earth continues, we may enjoy the heavenly life by
faith: for he
“hath blessed us
with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in
Christ,”
(<490103>Ephesians
1:3.)
Though we are like dead men, yet we know that our
life is secure; for it “is hid with Christ in God,”
(<510303>Colossians
3:3.)
From this doctrine, as its source, is drawn the
exhortation to
repentance.
For John does not say, “Repent
ye,
and in this way the kingdom
of heaven will afterwards be
at
hand;” but first brings forward
the grace of God, and then exhorts men to
repent.
Hence it is evident, that the foundation of repentance is the mercy of God,
by which he restores the lost. In no other sense is it stated by Mark and Luke,
that he preached repentance for
the forgiveness of sins. Repentance is
not placed first, as some ignorantly suppose, as if it were the ground of the
forgiveness of sins, or as if it induced God to begin to be gracious to us; but
men are commanded to repent, that they may receive the reconciliation which is
offered to them. Now, as the undeserved love of God—by which he receives
into his favor wretched men, “not imputing their trespasses unto
them,”
(<470519>2
Corinthians 5:19)—is first in order; so it must be observed, that pardon
of sins is bestowed upon us in Christ, not that God may treat them with
indulgence, but that he may heal us from our sins. And, indeed, without hatred
of sin and remorse for transgressions, no man will taste the grace of God. But a
definition of
repentance
and
faith
may explain more fully the manner in which both are connected; which leads
me to handle this doctrine more sparingly.
With regard to the meaning of the present passage, it
is proper to observe, that the whole Gospel consists of two
parts,—forgiveness of
sins, and
repentance.
Now, as Matthew denominates the first of these
the kingdom of
heaven, we may conclude, that men are in
a state of deadly enmity with God, and altogether shut out from the heavenly
kingdom, till God receives them into favor. Though John, when he introduces the
mention of the grace of God, exhorts men to repentance, yet it must not be
forgotten that repentance, not less than the inheritance of the heavenly
kingdom, is the gift of God. As he freely pardons our sins, and delivers us, by
his mercy, from the condemnation of eternal death, so also does he form us anew
to his image, that we may live unto righteousness. As he freely adopts us for
his sons, so he regenerates us by his Spirit, that our life may testify, that we
do not falsely,
f229 address him as our Father. In
like manner, Christ washes away our sins by his blood, and reconciles our
Heavenly Father to us by the sacrifice of his death; but, at the same time, in
consequence of
“our old man being
crucified with him, and the body of sin
destroyed,”
(<450606>Romans
6:6)
he makes us “alive” unto righteousness.
The sum of the Gospel is, that God, through his Son, takes away our sins, and
admits us to fellowship with him, that we,
“denying
ourselves” and our own nature, may “live soberly, righteously, and
godly,” and thus may exercise ourselves on earth in meditating on the
heavenly
life.
<420303>Luke
3:3. Preaching the baptism of
repentance. This form of expression
shows first, generally, what is the right use of the Sacraments; and next, why
baptism
was instituted, and in what it consists. A sacrament, then, is not a dumb
ceremony, exhibiting some unmeaning pomp without doctrine; but the Word of God
is joined to it, and gives life to the outward ceremony. By
the
Word I mean, not mutterings of a magical
character, made by some exorcist between his teeth, but what is pronounced with
a clear and distinct voice, and leads to the edification of faith. For we are
not simply told, that John
baptized unto
repentance, as if the grace of God were
contained in a visible sign; but that he explained, in his preaching, the
advantage of baptism, that the sign, through the word preached, might produce
its effect. This is the peculiarity of baptism, that it is said to be an outward
representation of repentance for
the forgiveness of sins. Now, as the
meaning, power, and nature of that baptism are the same as ours, if we judge of
the figure from its true import, it is incorrect to say, that the baptism of
John is different from the baptism of Christ.
f230
<400303>Matthew
3:3. The yoke of one crying
in the wilderness. Though this passage
of the prophet Isaiah (40:3) ought not to be limited exclusively to John, yet he
is one of the number of those to whom it certainly refers. After having spoken
of the destruction of the city, and of the awful calamities that would befall
the people, he promises a restoration that would follow. His words
are,
“Comfort ye,
comfort ye my people, saith your
God,”
(<234001>Isaiah
40:1.)
When the temple had been thrown down, and sacrifices
abolished, and the people led away into captivity, their affairs seemed to be
desperate. And as their ears had been deaf to the uninterrupted voice of the
prophets, the Lord kept silence for a time.
f231 That pious minds may not be cast
down during this melancholy silence, the prophet announces, that other preachers
of grace will yet arise, to awaken in the people a hope of salvation. Such were
Zechariah, Haggai, Malachi, and the like.
f232 But as the restoration promised
is perpetual, and not for a time only, and as Isaiah refers chiefly to the
redemption, which was to be expressed at the coming of Christ, John the Baptist
is justly considered the chief minister of consolation.
Next follows in the words of the prophet,
The voice of one
crying. That
voice
is contrasted with the temporary silence,
f233 which I have just mentioned: for
the Jews were to be deprived, for a time, of the instruction, which they had
wickedly despised. The word
wilderness
is here used metaphorically for
desolation,
or the frightful ruin of the nation, such as existed in the time of the
captivity. It was so dismally shattered, that it might well be compared to a
wilderness.
The prophet magnifies the grace of God. “Though the people,”
says he, “have been driven far from their country, and even excluded from
the society of men, yet the voice of God will yet be heard in
the
wilderness, to revive the dead with
joyful consolation.” When John began to preach, Jerusalem was in this
sense a
wilderness:
for all had been reduced to wild and frightful confusion. But the very sight
of a visible
wilderness
must have had a powerful effect on stupid and hardened men, leading them to
perceive that they were in a state of death, and to accept the promise of
salvation, which had been held out to them. We now see, that this prediction
actually relates to John, and is most properly applied to him.
Prepare the way of the
Lord. The prophet undoubtedly addresses
Cyrus and the Persians, whose agency the Lord employed in this matter. The
meaning is: by his wonderful power, God will open a way to his people through
impassable forests, through broken rocks, through a sandy desert; for he will
have at hand the ministers of his grace, to remove all hindrances out of the
way. But that was a shadowy anticipation of redemption. When the spiritual truth
is about to appear, John is sent to remove obstacles. And even now the same
voice sounds in our ears, that we may
prepare the way of the
Lord: that is, that we may take out of
the way those sins which obstruct the kingdom of Christ, and thus may give
access to his grace. To the same purpose are the following words of the prophet:
the crooked shall be made straight,
(<234004>Isaiah
40:4.) All that they mean is: there are intricate and crooked windings in the
world, but through such appalling difficulties the Lord makes a way for himself,
and breaks through, by incredible means, to accomplish our
salvation.
<420306>Luke
3:6. And all flesh shall see
the salvation of God. That salvation
will not be at all obscure, or experienced by a small number of persons, but
will strike every eye, and will be common to all. Hence it follows that this
prediction was far from being accomplished, when the people returned from
Babylon:
f234 for though the Lord gave, at that
time, a memorable display of his grace, yet he did not reveal his
salvation
to the whole world. On the contrary, the prophet’s design was, to
present the uncommon excellence of the salvation which was to be manifested, in
contrast with God’s former benefits, and thus to inform believers, that
the dispensations of God towards his Church had never been so remarkable, nor
his power so illustriously displayed in their deliverance.
Flesh
is here put for
men,
without being intended to denote their
depravity.
f235
<400304>Matthew
3:4. And the same John had
his raiment of camel’s hair. The
Evangelist does not desire us to reckon it as one of John’s chief
excellencies, that he followed a rough and austere way of living, or even that
he avoided a moderate and ordinary degree of elegance: but, having already
stated that he was an inhabitant of the mountains, he now adds, that his food
and clothing were adapted to his residence. And he mentions this, not only to
inform us, that John was satisfied with the food and dress of the peasants, and
partook of no delicacies; but that, under a mean and contemptible garb, he was
held in high estimation by men of rank and splendor. Superstitious persons look
upon righteousness as consisting almost entirely of outward appearances, and
have commonly thought, that abstinence of this kind was the perfection of
holiness. Nearly akin to this is the error, of supposing him to be a man who
lived in solitude, and who disdained the ordinary way of living; as the only
superiority of hermits and monks is, that they differ from other people. Nay,
gross ignorance has gone so far that, out of
camel’s
hair they have made an entire
skin.
Now, there can be no doubt, that the Evangelist here
describes a man of the mountains,
f236 widely distant from all the
refinement and delicacies of towns,—not only satisfied with such food as
could be procured, but eating only what was fit to be used in its natural state,
such as wild
honey, which is supplied by that region
in great abundance, and
locusts,
with which it also abounds. Or he may have intended to point out that, when
a man of mean aspect, and without any polite accomplishments, appeared in public
life, it was attended by this advantage, that the majesty of God shone alone in
him, and yet struck all with admiration. For we must observe what is added, that
there was a great concourse of people from all directions; from which we infer,
that his fame was very widely spread.
f237 Or the Evangelist may have
signified the design of God, to present, in the person of John, a singular
instance of frugality, and, in this manner, to fill the Jews with reverence for
his doctrine, or at least to convince them of ingratitude, according to that
saying of our Lord, John the
Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking
wine,
(<420733>Luke
7:33.)
Matthew 3:6; Mark 1:5.
And were baptized, confessing
their sins. This
confession
was a testimony of
repentance:
for, as the Lord, in the sacraments, brings himself under obligation to us,
as if he had given his own hand-writing, so it is our duty, on the other hand,
to reply to him. In
Baptism,
he declares that our sins are forgiven, and calls us to repentance. That men
may come forward, in a right manner, to be baptized,
confession of
sins is demanded from them: otherwise
the whole performance would be nothing but an idle
mockery
f238 Let it be observed, that we are
here speaking of adults, who ought not, we. are aware, to be admitted
indiscriminately into the Church, or introduced by Baptism into the body of
Christ,
f239 till an examination has been
previously made. f240
Hence it is obvious, how absurdly this passage has
been tortured by the Papists, to support auricular confession. There were no
priests at hand, in whose ears each individual might privately
mutter
f241 his sins; nor is it said that
they enumerated all their sins; nor are we told that John left in charge to his
disciples an ordinary rule for confession. Even granting to Papists all that
they ask, confession will belong to Catechumens
alone,
f242 and will have no place after
Baptism. At all events, the law which they lay down for confession after
Baptism, derives no countenance from John’s example.
f243
See Calvin
on “Mt
3:6”
MATTHEW
3:7-10; LUKE 3:7-14
|
MATTHEW
3:7-10
|
LUKE
3:7-14
|
|
7. And when he saw many of the
Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, Offspring of
vipers, who warned you that ye might flee from the wrath to come?
8. Yield then fruits worthy of repentance.
9. And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham
for our fathers: for I say to you, that God is able to raise, from these stones,
children to Abraham. 10. And now also the axe is laid at the
root of the trees: every tree, therefore, which yieldeth not good fruit, is cut
down, and is thrown into the fire.
|
7. He said therefore to the
multitudes, which went out, that they might be baptized by him, Offspring of
vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8. Yield therefore fruits worthy of repentance. And begin to
to say within yourselves, We have Abraham as our father: for I say to you, that
God is able, from these stones, to raise up children to Abraham.
9. And now also the axe is laid to the root of the trees:
every tree, therefore, which yieldeth not good fruit, is cut down, and is thrown
into the fire. 10. And the multitudes asked him, saying, What
then shall we do? 11. And he answering saith to them, He who
hath two coats, let him impart to him who hath none; and he who hath food, let
him do in like manner.
f244
12. And the publicans also
came, that they might be baptized, and said to him, Master, what shall we do?
13. And he said to them, Exact no more than what has been
enjoined you. 14. And the soldiers also asked him, saying,
And what shall we do? He saith to them, Do violence to no man, accuse no man
falsely, and be content with your wages.
|
Matthew 3:7.
And when he saw many of the
Pharisees. It is here related by Matthew
and Luke, that John did not merely preach repentance in a general manner, but
that he also applied his discourse to individuals. And the manner of teaching
will, in point of fact, be very unprofitable, if instructors do not judiciously
inquire what the season demands, and what belongs to individuals. Nothing can be
more unequal, in this respect, than a constant
equality.
f245 For this reason John, we are
told, addressed the Pharisees and Sadducees with greater severity: because he
saw that their hypocrisy, and swelling pride, rendered them liable to be more
severely censured than the common people. To comprehend more fully his design,
we must understand, that none are more stupid than hypocrites, who deceive
themselves and others by the outward mask of holiness. While God thunders, on
all sides, against the whole world, they construct a refuge for themselves in
their own deceitful fancy; for they are convinced that they have nothing to do
with the judgment of God. Does any one suppose, that John acted improperly, in
treating them with so much harshness at the first interview? I reply: They were
not unknown to him,
f246 and the knowledge he had of them
was derived, not from acquaintance or experience, but, on the contrary, from a
secret revelation of the Spirit. It was therefore necessary that he should not
spare them, lest they might return home more inflated with pride. Is it again
objected, that they ought not to have been terrified by such severity of
reproof, because they made a profession, in baptism, that they would afterwards
be different persons from what they had formerly been? The reply is still easy.
Those whose habits of uttering falsehood to God, and of deceiving themselves,
lead them to hold out hypocrisy and pretension, instead of the reality, ought to
be urged, with greater sharpness than other men, to true repentance. There is an
astonishing pertinacity, as I have said, in hypocrites; and, until they have
been flayed by violence, they obstinately keep their
skin.
As to the loud and open rebuke, which was
administered to them in presence of all, it was for the sake of others; and that
is the reason why Luke mentions, that it was addressed to
multitudes,
(<420307>Luke
3:7.) Though the persons whom John reproved were few in number, his design was
to strike terror on all; as Paul enjoins us to regard it as the advantage of
public rebukes, “that others also may fear,”
(<540520>1
Timothy 5:20.) He addresses directly the Pharisees and Sadducees, and at the
same time, addresses, through them, a warning to all, not to hold out a
hypocritical appearance of repentance, instead of a true affection of the heart.
Besides, it was of great importance to the whole nation to
know f247
what sort of people the Pharisees and Sadducees were, who had miserably
corrupted the worship of God, wasted the church, and overturned the whole of
religion;—in a word, who had extinguished the light of God by their
corruptions, and infected every thing by their crimes.
It is probable, therefore, that John publicly
attacked the Pharisees, for the benefit of the whole church of God, that they
might no longer dazzle the eyes of simple men by empty show, or hold the body of
the people under oppression by wicked tyranny. In this respect, it was a
remarkable display of his firmness, that those, who were highly esteemed by
others, were not spared on account of their reputation, but sternly reduced, as
they deserved, to their proper rank. And thus ought all godly instructors to be
zealous, not to dread any power of man, but boldly strive to “cast down
every high thing that exalteth itself” against Christ,
(<471005>2
Corinthians 10:5.)
If John, the organ of the Holy Spirit, employed such
severity of language in his opening address to those who voluntarily came to be
baptized, and to make a public profession of the gospel; how ought we now to act
towards the avowed enemies of Christ, who not only reject obstinately all that
belongs to sound doctrine, but whose efforts to extinguish the name of Christ
are violently maintained by fire and sword? Most certainly, if you compare the
Pope, and his abominable clergy, with the Pharisees and Sadducees, the mildest
possible way of dealing with them will be, to throw them all into one bundle.
Those, whose ears are so delicate, that they cannot endure to have any bitter
thing said against the Pope, must argue, not with us, but with the Spirit of
God. Yet let godly teachers beware, lest, while they are influenced by holy zeal
against the tyrants of the Church, they mingle with it the affections of the
flesh. And as no vehemence, which is not regulated by the wisdom of the Spirit,
can obtain the divine approbation, let them not only restrain their feelings,
but surrender themselves to the Holy Spirit, and implore his guidance, that
nothing may escape them through inadvertency.
f248
Offspring of
vipers. He gives them this name, instead
of simply calling them
vipers,
in order to expose the envenomed malice of the whole class: for he intended
to condemn, not merely those few persons who were present, but the whole body,
and to charge both sects with producing nothing but serpents. They had vehement
disputes, no doubt, with each other: but all were agreed in despising God, in a
wicked desire to rule, in hatred of sound doctrine, and in a disgusting mass of
numerous crimes.
Who warned
you? As he had suspicions of their
repentance, he puts the question with doubt and wonder, if it be possible that
they repent sincerely. In this way, he summons them to the inward tribunal of
conscience, that they may thoroughly examine themselves, and, laying aside all
flattery, may institute a severe investigation into their crimes.
Wrath
is put here, as in many other places, for the judgment of God: as when Paul
says, “The law worketh wrath,” (Romans 4:15,) and “Give place
to wraths
f249”, (Romans 12:19.) He calls it the
wrath to
come, which hangs over their heads, that
they may not indulge in their wonted carelessness. For, though the wrath of God
overflows, and his chastisements strike, the whole world, hypocrites always
entertain the hope that they will escape.
To flee from the
wrath of God, is here taken in a good
sense, that is, to seek the means of appeasing God, that he may no longer be
angry with us. For a good part of men, in order to escape the wrath of God,
withdraw themselves from his guidance and authority. But all that the sinner
gains by
fleeing from God, is to provoke more and
more the wrath of God against him.
Matthew
3:8; Luke 3:8. Yield
therefore fruits worthy of repentance.
He confirms what I have already said, that the repentance, which is attested
by words, is of no value, unless it be proved by the conduct: for it is too
important a matter to be estimated lightly, or at random. And so John affirms,
that the solemn declaration, which they made, is not enough, but that, in
process of time, their works will make it evident, whether or not they have
seriously repented.
f250 It ought to be observed, that
good
works
(<560308>Titus
3:8) are here called fruits of
repentance: for
repentance
is an inward matter, which has its seat in the heart and soul, but
afterwards yields its fruits in a change of
life.
f251 But as the whole of this part of
doctrine has been grievously corrupted by Popery, we must attend to this
distinction, that
repentance
is an inward renewal of the man, which manifests itself in the outward life,
as a tree produces its fruit.
See Calvin on
“Mt 3:8”
See Calvin on “Mt
3:9”
Matthew 3:9.
And think not to say within
yourselves. Luke 3:8.
And begin not to say within
yourselves. As the import of both
phrases is undoubtedly the same, it is easy to ascertain what John meant. Till
hypocrites are hard pressed, they either sleep in their sins, or indulge in
licentious mirth.
f252 But when they are summoned to the
tribunal of God, they eagerly seek for some subterfuge or concealment, or some
covering to interpose between God and them. John’s address to the
Pharisees and Sadducees amounts to this: “Now that I have
sharply upbraided you, do not, as persons of your stamp are wont to do endeavor
to find a remedy in an empty and deceitful title.”
He thus tears from them the wicked confidence, by
which they had been bewitched. The covenant, which God had made with Abraham,
was employed by them as a shield to defend a bad conscience: not that they
rested their salvation on the person of one man, but that God had adopted all
the posterity of Abraham. Meanwhile, they did not consider, that none are
entitled to be regarded as belonging to “the seed of Abraham,”
(<430833>John
8:33,) but those who follow his faith, and that without faith the covenant of
God has no influence whatever in procuring salvation. And even the little word,
in
yourselves, is not without meaning: for
though they did not boast in words, that they were Abraham’s children, yet
they were inwardly delighted with this title, as hypocrites are not ashamed to
practice grosser impositions on God than on men.
God is
able. The Jews flattered themselves with
nearly the same pretenses, as are now brought forward insolently by the Papists.
“There must be some Church in the world; because it is the will of God
that he be acknowledged, and his name invoked, in the world. But the Church can
be nowhere else than among us, to whom God has entrusted his
covenant.”
f253 This arrogance was chiefly
displayed by the high priests, and by others who had any share of government or
authority. The common people were treated by them as profane and
“accursed,”
(<430749>John
7:49,) and they looked upon themselves as the holy first-fruits; just as, in our
own day, mitred Bishops, Abbots, Canons, Monks, Sorbonnists, and every
description of Priests, glorying in the proud title of Clergy, regard the Laity
with contempt. This error, of relying too much on the promise of God, John
exposes and refutes, by saying that, though God passes by them, he will not want
a Church.
The meaning of the words, therefore, is: “God
has made an everlasting covenant with Abraham and his seed. In one point you are
mistaken. While you are worse than bastards,
f254 you imagine that you are the only
children of Abraham. But God will raise up elsewhere a new seed of Abraham,
which does not now appear.” He says in the dative case,
children
To ABRAHAM, (tw~
jAbraa<m,) to inform us, that the promise of God
will not fail, and that Abraham, who relied on it, was not deceived, though his
seed be not found in you. Thus from the beginning of the world the Lord has been
faithful to his servants, and has never failed to fulfill the promise which he
made to them, that he would extend mercy to their children, though he rejected
hypocrites. Some imagine, that John spoke of the calling of the Gentiles. This
appears to me to be without foundation: but as proud men did not believe it to
be possible that the Church should be removed to another place, he reminds them,
that God has in his power ways of preserving his Church, which they did not
think of, any more than they believed that he could create
children
out of
stones.
Matthew
3:10; Luke 3:9. And now also
the axe. After having stripped
hypocrites of the covering of a vain confidence, John announces the approaching
judgment of God. He had formerly said that, though they were rejected, God would
not want a people: and he now adds, that God is just about to drive out unworthy
persons from the Church, as barren
trees
are wont to be cut
down. His statement amounts to this,
that God has already displayed his power for purifying the Church. The grace of
God is never manifested for the salvation of the godly, till his judgment first
appears for the destruction of the world: and for two reasons; because God then
separates his own people from the reprobate, and because his wrath is kindled
anew by the ingratitude of the world. So that we have no reason to wonder, if
the preaching of the gospel and the coming of Christ laid
the
axe for
cutting
down barren trees, or if the same
causes
f255 daily advance the wrath of God
against the wicked.
See Calvin on “Mt
3:10”
Luke 3:10.
And the multitudes asked
him. A true feeling of repentance
produces in the mind of the poor sinner an eager desire to know what is the will
or command of God. John’s reply explains, in a few words,
the fruits worthy of
repentance: for the world is always
desirous to acquit itself of its duty to God by performing ceremonies; and there
is nothing to which we are more prone, than to offer to God pretended worship,
whenever he calls us to repentance. But
what
fruits does the Baptist here recommend?
The duties of charity, and of the second Table of the
Law: f256
not that God disregards the outward profession of godliness, and of his
worship; but that this is a surer mark of distinction, and less frequently leads
to mistakes.
f257 For hypocrites labor strenuously
to prove themselves worshippers of God by the performance of
ceremonies,—paying no regard, however, to true righteousness: for they are
either cruel to their neighbors, or addicted to falsehood and
dishonesty.
It was therefore necessary to subject them to a more
homely examination,
f258 if they are just in their
dealings with men, if they relieve the poor, if they are generous to the
wretched, if they give liberally what the Lord has bestowed upon them. This is
the reason why our Lord pronounces “judgment, mercy, and faith,” to
be “the weightier matters
of the law,”
(<402323>Matthew
23:23,) and Scripture everywhere recommends “justice and
judgment.” We must particularly observe, that the duties of charity are
here mentioned, not because they are of higher value than the worship of God,
but because they testify the piety of men,
f259 so as to detect the hypocrisy of
those who boast with the mouth what is far distant from the
heart.
But it is asked, did John lay this injunction, in a
literal sense, on all whom he was preparing to be Christ’s disciples, that
they should not have two
coats? We must observe, first, that this
is the figure of speech which is called a Synecdoche, for under one
example it comprehends a general rule. Hence it follows, that we must draw from
it a meaning, which corresponds to the law of charity, as it is laid down by
God: and that law is, that each person should give out of his abundance to
supply the wants of the poor. God does not extort a tax, to be paid
“grudgingly or of necessity” by those who, but for that necessity,
would have chosen not to pay it: “for the Lord loveth a” willing and
“cheerful giver,”
(<470907>2
Corinthians 9:7.) I make this observation, because it is of great consequence
for men to be convinced, that the por service et de la crainte de son nom, mais
pource que l’autre partie est la marque la plus certaine pour cognoians,
et, laquelle vrals on est le moins abuse.”—”Not that God does
not require also an external profession of his service and of the fear of his
name, but because the other part is the surest mark to know true penitents, and
one in which there is less risk of deception of their wealth which they bestow
in this manner is a sacrifice pleasing and of good savor to God,—that
“with such sacrifices God is well pleased,”
(<581316>Hebrews
13:16.)
Those who lay it down as a law, that no man must have
any property of his own, not only make consciences to tremble, but overwhelm
them with despair. With fanatics of this sort, who obstinately adhere to the
literal meaning, it is not necessary that we should spend much time in
refutation. If we are not allowed to have
two
coats, the same rule will apply to
dishes, to salt-cellars, to shirts, and, in short, to all the furniture of a
house. But the context makes it evident, that nothing was farther from
John’s intention than to overthrow the order of a state. Hence we infer,
that all that he enjoined on the rich was, that they should bestow on the poor,
according to their own ability, what their necessity required.
“Consider to what
extent the necessaries of life, which you enjoy abundantly, are wanted by your
neighbors, that your abundance may be a supply for their want,”
(<470814>2
Corinthians 8:14.)
But the more liberty that God allows us, we ought to
be the more careful not to allow ourselves undue
liberty.
f260 Let the necessity of our brethren
affect us powerfully, and let the bounty of God, which is in our hands,
stimulate us to acts of kindness and
generosity.
Luke 3:12.
And the
publicans
f261
also came. The
publicans are not only exhorted, in
general terms, to repent, but the duties peculiar to their calling are demanded:
for we know
that,
besides the general rule of the law, each person ought to consider what is
required by the nature of the employment to which he has been called. All
Christians, without distinction, “ re taught of God to love one
another,”
(<520409>1
Thessalonians 4:9:) but then there follow particular duties, which a teacher,
for example, is bound to perform towards the Church,—a magistrate or
prince towards the people, and the people, on the other hand, towards the
magistrate,—a husband towards his wife, and a wife towards her
husband,—and finally, children and parents toward each other. The
Publicans,
viewed as a class, were covetous, rapacious, and cruel, and often oppressed
the people by unjust exactions. In consequence of this, the Baptist reproves
them for those offenses, with which that class was, for the most part,
chargeable, when he commands them not to go beyond moderation in exacting
tribute. At the same time, we draw this inference, that it is quite as lawful
for a Christian man to receive or levy taxes, as for a magistrate to impose
them.
In the same way we must judge about war. John does
not order the soldiers to throw away their arms, and to relinquish their oath;
but he forbids them to pillage the wretched people under the pretense of their
duty as soldiers, to bring false accusations against the innocent, and to be
guilty of extortions,—all of which crimes the greater part of them were
accustomed to practice. These words obviously contain an approbation of civil
government. It is a piece of idle sophistry to say, that John’s hearers
were ignorant people, and that he gave them nothing more than elementary
instructions, which fell very far short of Christian perfection. John’s
office was, to make ready a
people prepared for the Lord,
(<420117>Luke
1:17) and there is no doubt that it was entirely and faithfully
performed. Those men are guilty of calumny and sacrilege, who slander the
Gospel, by declaring it to be opposed to human
governments;
f262 as if Christ destroyed what his
heavenly Father sanctioned. But, without the sword, laws are dead, and legal
judgments have no force or authority. Magistrates require not only an
executioner,
f263 but other attendants, among whom
are the military,
f264 without whose assistance and
agency it is impossible to maintain peace. Still, the object must be considered.
Princes must not allow themselves to sport with human blood, nor must soldiers
give themselves up to cruelty, from a desire of gain, as if slaughter were their
chief business: but both must be drawn to it by necessity, and by a regard to
public advantage.
MATTHEW 3:11-12; MARK 1:7-8;
LUKE 3:15-18
|
MATTHEW
3:11-12
|
MARK
1:7-8
|
LUKE
3:15-18
|
|
11. I indeed baptize you with
water to repentance: but he who cometh after me is stronger than I, whose shoes
I am not worthy to carry: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with
fire. 12. Whose winnowing-fan is in his hand, and he will
thoroughly cleanse his thrashing-floor, and will collect the wheat into his
barn: but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
|
7. And he preached, saying, One
cometh after me, that latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and
loose. 8. I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall
baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
|
15. And while the people were
waiting, and while all were thinking in their hearts about John, whether he was
the Christ: 16. John answered to all, saying, I indeed
baptize you with water, but there cometh one stronger than I, the latchet of
whose shoes I am not worthy to loose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost
and with fire. 17. Whose winnowing-fan is in his hand, and he
will cleanse his thrashing-floor, and will collect the wheat into his barn: but
he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire. 18. And
exhorting also as to many other things, he preached the
Gospel
f265
to the people.
|
The three Evangelists relate the Baptist’s
discourse in the same words. In one respect, Luke’s account is more full:
for he opens it by explaining the occasion on which this discourse was
delivered. It arose from the people being in danger of being led, by a false
opinion, to convey to him the honor which was due to Christ. To remove, as soon
as possible, every occasion of such a mistake, he expressly declares, that he is
not the Christ, and draws such a distinction between Christ and himself as to
maintain Christ’s prerogative. He would have done this of his own accord,
by handing them over,
to use a common expression, as disciples
to Christ: but he takes up the matter at an earlier stage, lest, by remaining
silent any longer, he should confirm the people in an error.
He who cometh after me is stronger
than I. Christ is thus declared to be so
far superior in power and rank, that, with respect to him, John must occupy a
private station.
f266 He uses ordinary forms of speech
to magnify the glory of Christ, in comparison of whom he declares that he
himself is nothing. The chief part of his statement is, that he represents
Christ as the author of spiritual baptism, and himself as only the minister of
outward baptism. He appears to anticipate an objection, which might be brought
forward. What was the design of the Baptism which he had taken upon himself? For
it was no light matter to introduce any innovation whatever into the Church of
God, and particularly to bring forward a new way of introducing persons into the
Church, which was more perfect than the law of God. He replies, that he did not
proceed to do this without authority; but that his office, as minister of an
outward symbol, takes nothing away from the power and glory of
Christ.
Hence we infer, that his intention was not at all to
distinguish between his own baptism, and that which Christ taught his disciples,
and which he intended should remain in perpetual obligation in his Church. He
does not contrast one visible sign with another visible sign, but compares the
characters of master and servant with each other, and shows what is due to the
master, and what is due to the servant. It ought not to have any weight with us,
that an opinion has long and extensively prevailed, that John’s baptism
differs from ours. We must learn to form our judgment from the matter as it
stands, and not from the mistaken opinions of men. And certainly the comparison,
which they imagine to have been made, would involve great absurdities. It would
follow from it, that the Holy Spirit is given, in the present day, by
ministers. Again, it would follow that John’s baptism was a dead sign, and
had no efficacy whatever. Thirdly, it would follow, that we have not the same
baptism with Christ: for it is sufficiently evident, that the fellowship, which
he condescends to maintain with us, was ratified by this
pledge,
f267 when he consecrated baptism in
his own body.
We must therefore hold by what I have already said,
that John merely distinguishes, in this passage, between himself and the other
ministers of baptism, on the one hand, and the power of Christ, on the other,
and maintains the superiority of the master over the servants. And hence we
deduce the general doctrine, as to what is done in baptism by men, and what is
accomplished in it by the Son of God. To men has been committed nothing more
than the administration of an outward and visible sign: the reality dwells with
Christ alone.
f268
Scripture does sometimes, though not in a literal
sense,
f269 ascribe to men what John here
declares not to belong to men, but claims exclusively for Christ. In such cases,
however, the design is not to inquire, what man has separately and by himself,
but merely to show, what is the effect and advantage of signs, and in what
manner God makes use of them, as instruments, by his Spirit. Here also is laid
down a distinction between Christ and his ministers, that the world may not fall
into the mistake, of giving to them what is justly due to him alone: for there
is nothing to which they are more prone, than to adorn creatures with what has
been taken from God by robbery. A careful attention to this observation will rid
us of many difficulties. We know what disputes have arisen, in our own age,
about the advantage and efficacy of signs, all of which may be disposed of in a
single word. The ordinance of our Lord, viewed as a whole, includes himself as
its Author, and the power of the Spirit, together with the figure and the
minister: but where a comparison is made between our Lord and the minister, the
former must have all the honor, and the latter must be reduced to
nothing.
Matthew 3:11.
He
shall baptize you with
the Holy Spirit and with fire. It is
asked, why did not John equally say, that it is Christ alone who washes souls
with his blood? The reason is, that this very washing is performed by the power
of the Spirit, and John reckoned it enough to express the whole effect of
baptism by the single word
Spirit.
The meaning is clear, that Christ alone bestows all the grace which is
figuratively represented by outward baptism, because it is he who
“sprinkles the conscience” with his blood. It is he also who
mortifies the old man, and bestows the Spirit of regeneration. The word
fire
is added as an epithet, and is applied to the Spirit, because he takes away
our pollutions, as
fire purifies gold. In the same manner,
he is metaphorically called
water
in another passage,
(<430305>John
3:5.)
12.
Whose winnowing-fan is in his
hand. In the former verse, John preached
concerning the grace of Christ, that the Jews might yield themselves to him to
be renewed: now he discourses of judgment, that he may strike despisers with
terror. As there are always many hypocrites who proudly reject the grace of
Christ offered to them, it is also necessary to denounce the judgment that
awaits them. For this reason John here describes Christ as a severe judge
against unbelievers. And this is an order which must be observed by us in
teaching, that hypocrites may know, that their rejection of Christ will not go
unpunished. They will thus be roused from their lethargy, and begin to dread him
as an avenger, whom they despised as the author of salvation.
I have no doubt, that John intended also to show,
what Christ accomplishes by means of his Gospel. The preaching of the Gospel,
then, is the
winnowing-fan.
Before the Lord
sifts
us, the whole world is involved in confusion, every one flatters himself,
and the good are mixed with the bad in short, it is only necessary that the
chaff
be blown. But when Christ comes forward with his Gospels,—when he
reproves the consciences and summons them to the tribunal of God, the
chaff
is sifted out,
f270 which formerly occupied a great
part of the
thrashing-floor.
It is true that, in the case of individuals, the Gospel effects a separation
from the
chaff:
but in this passage, John compares the reprobate to
chaff,
and believers to
wheat.
The thrashing
floor accordingly denotes — not
the world, (as some people imagine,) but the Church: for we must attend to the
class of persons whom John addresses. The mere title filled the Jews with
pride,
f271 but John tells them that it is
foolish in them to be proud of it, because they hold but a temporary place in
the Church of God, from which they are soon to be thrown out, like
chaff
from the
thrashing-floor.
In this way, he gives a rapid glance at the corrupt state in which the Church
then was: for it was covered with husks, and straws, and other rubbish, but
would soon be cleansed by the strong breeze of the Gospel. But how is Christ
said to separate the
chaff
from the
wheat,
when he can find nothing in men but mere
chaff?
The answer is easy. The elect are formed into
wheat,
f272 and are then separated
from the
chaff,
and collected into the
granary.
He will thoroughly cleanse his
thrashing-floor. This work was begun by
Christ, and is daily going forward: but the full accomplishment of it will not
be seen till the last day. This is the reason why John draws our attention to
the subject. But let us remember, that believers even now enter, by hope, into
the
granary
of God, in which they will actually have their everlasting abode; while the
reprobate experience, in their convictions of guilt, the heat of that
fire,
the actual
burning
of which they will feel at the last day.
Many persons, I am aware, have entered into ingenious
debates about the eternal
fire,
by which the wicked will be tormented after the judgment. But we may
conclude from many passages of Scripture, that it is a metaphorical expression.
For, if we must believe that it is real, or what they call material
fire,
we must also believe that the
brimstone
and the
fan
are material, both of them being mentioned by Isaiah.
“For Tophet is ordained of old;
the pile thereof is fire and much wood; the breath of the Lord, like a stream of
brimstone, doth kindle it,”
(<233033>Isaiah
30:33.)
We must explain the fire in the same manner as the
worm,
(Mark 8:44, 46, 48.) and if it is universally agreed that the
worm
is a metaphorical term, we must form the same opinion as to the fire. Let us
lay aside the speculations, by which foolish men weary themselves to no purpose,
and satisfy ourselves with believing, that these forms of speech denote, in a
manner suited to our feeble capacity, a dreadful torment, which no man can now
comprehend, and no language can express.
MATTHEW 3:13-17; MARK 1:9-11;
LUKE 3:21-23
|
MATTHEW
3:13-17
|
MARK
1:9-11
|
LUKE
3:21-23
|
|
13. Then cometh Jesus from Galilee
to Jordan to John, that he might be baptized by him. 14. But
John forbade
f273
him, saying, I have need to be baptized by
thee, and dost thou come to me? 15. And Jesus answering said
to him, Suffer it now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then
he suffers him. 16. And Jesus, having been baptized, went up
immediately from the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw
the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him.
17. And, lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my be loved
Son, in whom I am well pleased.
|
9. And it happened in those days,
Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in Jordan.
10. And immediately, when he was going up out of the water,
he saw the heavens cleft assunder, and the Spirit descending as a dove, upon
him. 11. And a voice came from heaven, Thou art my beloved
Son, in whom I am well pleased.
|
21. And it happened, that, while
all the people were being baptized,
f274
when Jesus had been baptized and was praying,
the heaven was opened, 22. And that the Holy Spirit descended
in a bodily appearance,
f275
as a dove, upon him, and a voice came from
heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son: in thee I am well pleased.
23. And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of
age.
|
Matthew 3:13.
That he might be baptized by
him. For what purpose did the Son of God
wish to be baptized? This may be learned, in some measure, from his answer. We
have already assigned a special reason. He received the same baptism with us, in
order to assure believers, that they are ingrafted into his body, and that they
are “buried with him in baptism,” that they may rise to
“newness of life,”
(<450604>Romans
6:4.) But the end, which he here proposes, is more
extensive: for thus it became him
to fulfill all righteousness, (verse
15.) The word
righteousness
frequently signifies, in Scripture, the observation of the law: and in that
sense we may explain this passage to mean that, since Christ had voluntarily
subjected himself to the law, it was necessary that he should keep it in every
part. But I prefer a more simple interpretation. “Say nothing for the
present,” said our Lord, “about my
rank:
f276 for the question before us is
not, which of us deserves to be placed above the
other.
f277 Let us rather consider what our
calling demands, and what has been enjoined on us by God the Father.” The
general reason why Christ received baptism was, that he might render full
obedience to the Father; and the special reason was, that he might consecrate
baptism in his own body, that we might have it in common with
him.
14.
I have need to be baptized by
thee. It is certain, that John
acknowledged Christ to be not only a distinguished prophet, as many foolishly
dream, but the Son of God, as he really was: for otherwise he would have
dishonored God by lowering his holy calling to a mortal man. How he came to know
this, the reader will learn by consulting John’s Gospel, (1:15,33.) There
was, no doubt, plausibility in this ground of refusal, that Christ had no need
of his baptism: but John was mistaken in not considering, that it was for the
sake of others that baptism was asked.
f278 And so Christ bids him consider,
what was suitable to the character of a
servant,
(Philippians 2:7,) which he had undertaken; for a voluntary subjection takes
nothing from his glory. Though the good man
f279
remained ignorant, for a time, of some part of his public duty, this
particular error did not prevent him from discharging, in a proper and lawful
manner, his office of Baptist. This example shows, that we do not act rashly, in
undertaking the commission which the Lord has given us, according to the light
we enjoy, though we do not immediately comprehend all that belongs to our
calling, or that depends upon it. We must also observe his modesty, in giving up
his opinion, and immediately obeying
Christ.
16.
And, lo, the heavens were
opened to him. The opening of the heavens
sometimes means a manifestation of heavenly glory; but here it means also a
cleft, or opening, of the visible heaven, so that John could see
something beyond the planets and stars. The words of Mark can have no other
meaning, he saw the heavens cleft
asunder.
f280 An exact inquiry into the
way in which this opening was made, would be of no importance, nor is it
necessary. It is sufficient for us to believe, that it was a symbol of the
Divine presence. As the Evangelists say that John saw the Holy Spirit, it is
probable that the opening of the
heavens was chiefly on his account. Yet
I do not hesitate to admit that Christ also, so far as he was man, received from
it additional certainty as to his heavenly calling. This appears to be the
tendency of the words of Luke:
while Jesus was praying, the
heaven was opened,
(<420321>Luke
3:21:) for, though his prayers were always directed towards the benefit of
others, yet as man, when he commenced a warfare of so arduous a description, he
needed to be armed with a remarkable power of the Spirit.
But here two questions arise. The first is,
why did the Spirit, who had formerly dwelt in Christ, descend upon him
at that time? This question is answered by a passage of the prophet Isaiah,
which will be handled in another place.
“The Spirit of the
Lord God is upon me; because the Lord God hath anointed me to preach good
tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted,”
(<236101>Isaiah
61:1.)
Though the grace of the Spirit was bestowed on Christ
in a remarkable and extraordinary manner,
(<432003>John
20:33-34,) yet he remained at home as a private person, till he should be called
to public life by the Father. Now that the full time is come, for preparing to
discharge the office of Redeemer, he is clothed with a new power of the Spirit,
and that not so much for his own sake, as for the sake of others. It was done on
purpose, that believers might learn to receive, and to contemplate with
reverence, his divine power, and that the weakness of the flesh might not make
him despised.
This was also the reason why he
delayed his baptism till the
thirtieth year of his age,
(<420323>Luke
3:23.) Baptism was an appendage to the Gospel: and therefore it began at the
same time with the preaching of the Gospel. When Christ was preparing to preach
the Gospel, he was introduced by Baptism into his office; and at the same time
was endued with the Holy Spirit. When John beholds the Holy Spirit descending
upon Christ, it is to remind him, that nothing carnal or earthly must be
expected in Christ, but that he comes as a godlike
man, f281
descended from heaven, in whom the power of the Holy Spirit reigns. We know,
indeed, that he is God manifested in the flesh,
(<540316>1
Timothy 3:16:) but even in his character as a servant, and in his human nature,
there is a heavenly power to be considered.
The second question is, why did the Holy
Spirit appear in the shape of a
dove,
rather than in that of
fire?
The answer depends on the analogy, or resemblance between the gure and the thing
represented. We know what the prophet Isaiah ascribes to
Christ.
“He shall not cry,
nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall
he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench,”
(<234202>Isaiah
42:2, 3.)
On account of this mildness of Christ, by which he
kindly and gently called, and every day invites, sinners to the hope of
salvation, the Holy Spirit
descended upon him in the appearance of a
dove. And in this symbol has been held
out to us an eminent token of the sweetest consolation, that we may not fear to
approach to Christ, who meets us, not in the formidable power of the Spirit, but
clothed with gentle and lovely grace.
He saw the Spirit of
God. That is, John
saw:
for it immediately follow, that
the Spirit descended on
Christ. There now arises a third
question, how could John see the Holy Spirit? I reply: As the Spirit of God
is everywhere present, and fills heaven and earth, he is not said, in a literal
sense, to
descend,
and the same observation may be made as to his
appearance.
Though he is in himself invisible, yet he is spoken of as
beheld,
when he exhibits any visible sign of his presence. John did not see the
essence of the Spirit, which cannot be discerned by the senses of
men; f282
nor did he see his power, which is not beheld by human senses, but only by
the understanding of faith: but he saw
the appearance of a
dove, under which God showed the
presence of his Spirit. It is a figure of
speech,
f283 by which the sign is put for the
thing signified, the name of a spiritual object being applied to the visible
sign.
While it is foolish and improper to press, as some
do, the literal meaning, so as to include both the sign and the thing signified,
we must observe, that the connection subsisting between the sign and the thing
signified is denoted by these modes of expression. In this sense, the bread of
the Lord’s Supper is called the body of Christ,
(<461016>1
Corinthians 10:16:) not because it is so, but because it assures us, that the
body of Christ is truly given to us for food. Meanwhile, let us bear in mind
what I have just mentioned, that we must not imagine a descent of the thing
signified, so as to seek it in the sign, as if it had a bodily place there, but
ought to be abundantly satisfied with the assurance, that God grants, by his
secret power, all that he holds out to us by figures.
Another question more curious than useful has been
put. Was this
dove
a solid body, or the appearance of one? Though the words of Luke seem to
intimate that it was not the substance of a body, but only
a bodily
appearance; yet, lest I should afford to
any man an occasion of wrangling, I leave the matter
unsettled.
17. And,
lo, a voice from
heaven. From that
opening of the
heavens, which has been already
mentioned, a loud voice was heard, that its majesty might be more impressive.
The public appearance of Christ, to undertake the office of Mediator, was
accompanied by this announcement,
f284 in which he was offered to us by
the Father, that we may rely on this pledge of our adoption, and boldly call God
himself our Father. The designation of
Son
belongs truly and naturally to Christ alone: but yet he was declared to be
the Son of God in our flesh, that the favor of Him, whom he alone has a right to
call
Father,
may be also obtained for us. And thus when God presents Christ to us as
Mediator, accompanied by the title of
Son,
he declares that he is the Father of us all,
(<490406>Ephesians
4:6.)
Such, too, is the import of the epithet
beloved:
for in ourselves we are hateful to God, and his fatherly love must flow to
us by Christ. The best expounder of this passage is the Apostle Paul, when he
says
“who hath
predestinated us into adoption by Jesus Christ in himself, according to the good
pleasure of his will; to the praise of the glory of his grace, in which he hath
accepted us in the
Beloved,”
(<490105>Ephesians
1:5,6)
that is, in his beloved Son. It is still more fully
expressed by these words, in whom
I am well pleased. They imply, that the
love of God rests on Christ in such a manner, as to diffuse itself from him to
us all; and not to us only, but even to the angels themselves. Not that they
need reconciliation, for they never were at enmity with God: but even they
become perfectly united to God, only by means of their Head,
(<490122>Ephesians
1:22.) For the same reason, he is also called “the first-born of every
creature,”
(<510105>Colossians
1:5;) and Paul likewise states that Christ came
“to reconcile all
things to himself, both those which are on earth, and those which are in
heavens,”
(<510120>Colossians
1:20.)
MATTHEW 4:1-4; MARK 1:12-13;
LUKE 4:1-4
|
MATTHEW
4:1-4
|
MARK
1:12-13
|
LUKE
4:1-4
|
|
1. Then Jesus was led into the
wilderness by the Spirit, that he might be tempted by the devil;
2. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he at
length was hungry. 3. And when he who tempteth had approached
to him, he said, If thou art the Son of God, command that these stones may
become loaves.
f285
4. But he answering said, It
is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word which
proceedeth from the mouth of God.
|
12. And immediately the Spirit
drove him into the wilderness, 13. And he was in the
wilderness forty days and forty nights; and was tempted by Satan, and was with
the wild beasts. f286
|
1. And Jesus, full of the Holy
Ghost, returnined from Jordan, and was driven by the Spirit into the wilderness.
2. Forty days he was tempted by the devil; and he ate nothing
in those days, afterwards he was hungry.
f287
3. And the devil said to
him, If thou art the Son of God, command this stone that it may become bread.
4. And Jesus replied to him, saying, It is written, Man shall
not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
|
Matthew 4:1.
Then Jesus was
led. There were two reasons why Christ
withdrew into the wilderness. The first was, that, after a fast of forty days,
he might come forth as a new man, or rather a heavenly man, to the discharge of
his office. The next was, that he might be tried by temptation and undergo an
apprenticeship, before he undertook an office so arduous, and so elevated. Let
us therefore learn that, by the guidance of the Spirit, Christ withdrew from the
crowd of men, in order that he might come forth as the highest teacher of the
church, as the ambassador of God,—rather as sent from heaven, than as
taken from some town, and from among the common people.
In the same way Moses, when God was about to employ
him as his agent in publishing his law, was carried into Mount Sinai, withdrawn
from the view of the people, and admitted, as it were, into a heavenly
sanctuary,
(<022412>Exodus
24:12.) It was proper that Christ should be surrounded by marks of divine grace
and power—at least equally illustrious with those which were bestowed on
Moses, that the majesty of the Gospel might not be inferior to that of the Law.
If God bestowed singular honor on a doctrine which was “the ministration
of death,”
(<470307>2
Corinthians 3:7,) how much more honor is due to the doctrine of life? And if a
shadowy portrait of God had so much brightness, ought not his face, which
appears in the Gospel, to shine with full splendor?
Such also was the design of the
fasting:
for Christ abstained from eating and drinking, not to give an example of
temperance, but to acquire greater authority, by being separated from the
ordinary condition of men, and coming forth, as an angel from heaven, not as a
man from the earth. For what, pray, would have been that virtue of abstinence,
in not tasting food, for which he had no more appetite than if he had not been
clothed with flesh?
f288 It is mere folly, therefore, to
appoint a forty days’ fast, (as it is called,) in imitation of Christ.
There is no more reason why we should follow the example of Christ in this
matter, than there formerly was for the holy Prophets, and other Fathers under
the law, to imitate the fast of Moses. But we are aware, that none of them
thought of doing so; with the single exception of Elijah, who was employed by
God in restoring the law, and who, for nearly the same reason with Moses, was
kept in the mount fasting.
Those who fast daily, during all the forty days,
pretend that they are imitators of Christ. But how? They stuff their belly so
completely at dinner, that, when the hour of supper arrives, they have no
difficulty in abstaining from food. What resemblance do they bear to the Son of
God? The ancients practiced greater moderation: but even they had nothing that
approached to Christ’s
fasting,
any more, in fact, than the abstinence of men approaches to the condition of
angels, who do not eat at all. Besides, neither Christ nor Moses observed a
solemn fast every year; but both of them observed it only once during their
whole life. I wish we could say that they had only amused themselves, like apes,
by such fooleries. It was a wicked and abominable mockery of Christ, to attempt,
by this contrivance of fasting, to conform themselves to him as their
model.
f289 To believe that such fasting is a
meritorious work, and that it is a part of godliness and of the worship of God,
is a very base superstition.
But above all, it is an intolerable outrage on God,
whose extraordinary miracle they throw into the shade; secondly, on Christ,
whose distinctive badge they steal from him, that they may clothe themselves
with his spoils; thirdly, on the Gospel, which loses not a little of its
authority, if this
fasting
of Christ is not acknowledged to be his seal. God exhibited a singular
miracle, when he relieved his Son from the necessity of eating and when they
attempt the same thing by their own power, what is it but a mad and daring
ambition to be equal with God? Christ’s
fasting
was a distinctive badge of the divine glory: and is it not to defraud him of
his glory, and to reduce him to the ordinary rank of men, when mortals freely
mix themselves with him as his companions? God appointed Christ’s fasting
to seal the Gospel: and do those who apply it to a different purpose abate
nothing from the dignity of the Gospel? Away, then, with that ridiculous
imitation,
f290 which overturns the purpose of
God, and the whole order of his works. Let it be observed, that I do not speak
of
fastings
in general, the practice of which I could wish were more general among us,
provided it were pure.
But I must explain what was the object of
Christ’s
fasting.
Satan availed himself of our Lord’s hunger as an occasion for tempting
him, as will shortly be more fully stated. For the present, we must inquire
generally, why was it the will of God that his Son should be tempted? That he
was brought into this contest by a fixed purpose of God, is evident from the
words of Matthew and Mark, who say, that for this reason
he was led by the Spirit into the
wilderness. God intended, I have no
doubt, to exhibit in the person of his Son, as in a very bright mirror, how
obstinately and perseveringly Satan opposes the salvation of men. For how comes
it, that he attacks Christ more furiously, and directs all his power and forces
against him, at the particular time mentioned by the Evangelists, but because he
sees him preparing, at the command of the Father, to undertake the redemption of
men? Our salvation, therefore, was attacked in the person of Christ, just as the
ministers, whom Christ has authorized to proclaim his redemption, are the
objects of Satan’s daily warfare.
It ought to be observed, at the same time, that the
Son of God voluntarily endured the temptations, which we are now considering,
and fought, as it were, in single combat with the devil, that, by his victory,
he might obtain a triumph for us. Whenever we are called to encounter Satan, let
us remember, that his attacks can, in no other way, be sustained and repelled,
than by holding out this shield: for the Son of God undoubtedly allowed himself
to be tempted, that he may be constantly before our minds, when Satan excites
within us any contest of temptations. When he was leading a private life at
home, we do not read that he was tempted; but when he was about to discharge the
office of Redeemer, he then entered the field in the name of his whole church.
But if Christ was tempted as the public representative of all believers, let us
learn, that the temptations which befall us are not accidental, or regulated by
the will of Satan, without God’s permission; but that the Spirit of God
presides over our contests as an exercise of our faith. This will aid us in
cherishing the assured hope, that God, who is the supreme judge and disposer of
the combat,
f291 will not be unmindful of us, but
will fortify us against those distresses, which he sees that we are unable to
meet.
There is a slight apparent difference in the words of
Luke, that Jesus, full of the
Holy Ghost, withdrew from Jordan. They
imply, that he was then more abundantly endued with the grace and power of the
Spirit, in order that he might be more fortified for the battles which he had to
fight: for it was not without a good reason that
the Holy Spirit descended upon
him in a visible shape. It has been
already stated, that the grace of God shone in him the more brightly, as the
necessity arising out of our salvation became
greater.
f292 But, at first sight, it appears
strange, that Christ was liable to the temptations of the devil: for, when
temptation falls on men, it must always be owing to sin and weakness. I reply:
First, Christ took upon him our infirmity, but without sin,
(<580415>Hebrews
4:15.) Secondly, it detracts no more from his glory, that he was exposed to
temptations, than that he was clothed with our flesh: for he was made man on the
condition that, along with our flesh, he should take upon him our feelings. But
the whole difficulty lies in the first point. How was Christ surrounded by our
weakness, so as to be capable of being tempted by Satan, and yet to be pure and
free from all sin? The solution will not be difficult, if we recollect, that the
nature of Adam, while it was still innocent, and reflected the brightness of the
divine image,—was liable to temptations. All the bodily affections, that
exist in man, are so many opportunities which Satan seizes to tempt
him.
It is justly reckoned a weakness of human nature,
that our senses are affected by external objects. But this weakness would not be
sinful, were it not for the presence of corruption; in consequence of which
Satan never attacks us, without doing some injury, or, at least, without
inflicting a slight wound. Christ was separated from us, in this respect, by the
perfection of his nature; though we must not imagine him to have existed in that
intermediate condition, which belonged to Adam, to whom it was only granted,
that it was possible for him not to sin. We know, that Christ was fortified by
the Spirit with such power, that the darts of Satan could not pierce
him.
f293
Matthew 4:3.
And when he, who tempteth, had
approached to him. This name,
oJ
peira>zwn,
the
tempter, is given to Satan by the Spirit
for the express purpose, that believers may be more carefully on their guard
against him. Hence, too, we conclude, that temptations, which solicit us to what
is evil, come from him alone: for, when God is sometimes said to
tempt
or
prove,
(<012201>Genesis
22:1;
<051303>Deuteronomy
13:3,) it is for a different purpose, namely, to try their faith, or to inflict
punishment on unbelievers, or to discover the hypocrisy of those who do not
sincerely obey the truth.
That these stones may become
loaves. Here the ancients amused
themselves with ingenious trifles. The first temptation, they said, was to
gluttony; the second, to ambition; and the third, to covetousness. But it is
absurd to suppose that it arises from the intemperance of
gluttony,
f294 when a hungry person desires food
to satisfy nature. What luxury will they fancy themselves to have discovered in
the use of bread, that one who satisfies himself, as we say, with dry bread,
must be reckoned an epicure? But not to waste more words on that point,
Christ’s answer alone is sufficient to show, that the design of Satan was
altogether different. The Son of God was not such an unskillful or inexperienced
antagonist, as not to know how he might ward off the strokes of his adversary,
or idly to present his shield on the left hand when he was attacked on the
right. If Satan had endeavored to allure him by the enticements of
gluttony,
f295 he had at hand passages of
Scripture fitted to repel him. But he proposes nothing of this
sort.
4.
Man shall not live by bread
alone. He quotes the statement, that men
do not live by bread
alone, but by the secret blessing of
God. Hence we conclude, that Satan made a direct attack on the faith of Christ,
in the hope that, after destroying his faith, he would drive Christ to unlawful
and wicked methods of procuring food. And certainly he presses us very hard,
when he attempts to make us distrust God, and consult our own advantage in a way
not authorized by his word. The meaning of the words, therefore, is: “When
you see that you are forsaken by God, you are driven by necessity to attend to
yourself. Provide then for yourself the food, with which God does not supply
you.” Now, though
f296 he holds out the divine power of
Christ to turn the
stones
into
loaves,
yet the single object which he has in view, is to persuade Christ to depart
from the word of God, and to follow the dictates of infidelity.
Christ’s reply, therefore, is appropriate:
“Man shall not live
by bread alone. You advise me to
contrive some remedy, for obtaining relief in a different manner from what God
permits. This would be to distrust God; and I have no reason to expect that he
will support me in a different manner from what he has promised in his word.
You, Satan, represent his favor as confined to
bread:
but Himself declares, that, though every kind of food were wanting, his
blessing alone is sufficient for our nourishment.” Such was the kind of
temptation which Satan employed, the same kind with which he assails us daily.
The Son of God did not choose to undertake any contest of an unusual
description, but to sustain assaults in common with us, that we might be
furnished with the same armor, and might entertain no doubt as to achieving the
victory.
It is written, Man shall not live
by bread alone. The first thing to be
observed here is, that Christ uses Scripture as his shield: for this is the true
way of fighting, if we wish to make ourselves sure of the victory. With good
reason does Paul say, that, the sword of the Spirit is the word of God,”
and enjoin us to “take the shield of faiths”
(<490616>Ephesians
6:16,17.) Hence also we conclude, that Papists, as if they had made a bargain
with Satan, cruelly give up souls to be destroyed by him at his pleasure, when
they wickedly withhold the Scripture from the people of God, and thus deprive
them of their arms, by which alone their safety could be preserved. Those who
voluntarily throw away that armor, and do not laboriously exercise themselves in
the school of God, deserve to be strangled, at every instant, by Satan, into
whose hands they give themselves up unarmed. No other reason can be assigned,
why the fury of Satan meets with so little resistance, and why so many are
everywhere carried away by him, but that God punishes their carelessness, and
their contempt of his word.
We must now examine more closely the passage, which
is quoted by Christ from Moses:
that he might make thee know that
man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the
mouth of the Lord doth man live,
(<050803>Deuteronomy
8:3.) There are some who torture it to a false meaning, as referring to
spiritual life; as if our Lord had said, that souls are not nourished by visible
bread, but by the word of
God. The statement itself is, no doubt,
true: but Moses had quite a different meaning. He reminds them that, when no
bread could be obtained, God provided them with an extraordinary kind of
nourishment in “manna, which they knew not, neither did their fathers
know,”
(<050803>Deuteronomy
8:3;) and that this was intended as an evident proof, in all time coming, that
the life of man is not confined to
bread,
but depends on the will and good-pleasure of God.
The
word does not mean
doctrine,
but the purpose which God has made known, with regard to preserving the
order of nature and the lives of his creatures. Having created men, he does not
cease to care for them: but, as “he breathed into their nostrils the
breath of life,”
(<010207>Genesis
2:7,) so he constantly preserves the life which he has bestowed. In like manner,
the Apostle says, that he “upholdeth all things by his powerful
word,”(<580103>Hebrews
1:3;) that is, the whole world is preserved, and every part of it keeps its
place, by the will and decree of Him, whose power, above and below, is
everywhere diffused. Though we live on
bread,
we must not ascribe the support of life to the power of
bread,
but to the secret kindness, by which God imparts to bread the quality of
nourishing our bodies.
Hence, also, follows another statement: by
every word that proceedeth out of
the mouth of God shall men live. God,
who now employs bread for our support, will enable us, whenever he pleases, to
live by other means. This declaration of Moses condemns the stupidity of those,
who reckon life to consist in luxury and abundance; while it reproves the
distrust and inordinate anxiety which drives us to seek unlawful means. The
precise object of Christ’s reply is this: We ought to trust in God for
food, and for the other necessaries of the present life, in such a manner, that
none of us may overleap the boundaries which he has prescribed. But if Christ
did not consider himself to be at liberty to change
stones
into
bread,
without the command of God, much less is it lawful for us to procure food by
fraud, or robbery, or violence, or murder.
MATTHEW 4:5-11; MARK 1:13;
LUKE 4:5-13
|
MATTHEW
4:5-11
|
MARK
1:13
|
LUKE
4:5-13
|
|
5. Then the devil
taketh
f297
him into the holy city, and placeth him on the
pinnacle
f298
of the temple, 6. And saith
to him, If thou art the Son of God, throw thyself down: for it is written, He
will command his angels concerning thee, and they will carry thee in their
hands, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
7. Jesus said to him, Again it is written, Thou shalt not
tempt the Lord thy God. 8. Again, the devil taketh him to a
very high mountain, and pointeth out to him all the kingdoms of the world, and
the glory of them; 9. And saith to him, All these things I
will give thee, if, falling down, thou shalt adore me.
10. Then Jesus saith to him, Depart, Satan, for it is
written, Thou shalt adore the Lord thy God, and him alone thou shalt worship.
11. Then the devil leaveth him, and lo, angels approached,
and waited on him.
|
13. And angels waited on
him.
|
5. And the devil conducted him to
a high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment.
6. And the devil saith to him, I will give thee this
universal power, and the glory of them: for they have been delivered to me, and
to whomsoever I will, I give it. 7. If, therefore, bowing
down before me, thou shalt worship, all things shall be thine.
8. And Jesus answering said to him, Go behind me, Satan: for
it is written, Thou shalt adore the Lord thy God, and him alone thou shalt
worship. 9. And he led him to Jerusalem, and placed him on a
parapet of the temple, and said to him, If thou art the Son of God, throw
thyself down hence: 10. For it is written, that he will
command his angels concerning thee, that they may preserve thee:
11. And that they will support thee with their hands, lest
thou dash thy foot against a stone. 12. And he answering said
to him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
13. And all the temptation having been finished, the devil
departed from him for a time.
|
Matthew 4:5.
Then the devil taketh
him. It is not of great importance, that
Luke’s narrative makes that temptation to be the second, which Matthew
places as the third: for it was not the intention of the Evangelists to arrange
the history in such a manner, as to preserve on all occasions, the exact order
of time, but to draw up an abridged narrative of the events, so as to present,
as in a mirror or picture, those things which are most necessary to be known
concerning Christ. Let it suffice for us to know that Christ was tempted in
three ways. The question, which of these contests was the second, and which was
the third, need not give us much trouble or uneasiness. In the exposition, I
shall follow the text of Matthew.
Christ is said to have been
placed on the pinnacle of the
temple. It is asked, was he actually
carried to this elevated spot, or was it done in vision? There are many, who
obstinately assert, that the body was really and actually conveyed: for they
consider it to be unworthy of Christ, that he should be supposed to be liable to
the delusions of Satan. But it is easy to dispose of that objection. There is no
absurdity in supposing, that this took place by the permission of God and the
voluntary subjection of Christ; provided we hold that within,—that is, in
his mind and souls,—he suffered no delusion. What is next added, that
all the kingdoms of the
world were placed in the view of
Christ,—as well as what Luke relates, that he was carried to a great
distance in one moment,—agrees better with the idea of a vision, than with
any other supposition. In a matter that is doubtful, and where ignorance brings
no risk, I choose rather to suspend my judgment, than to furnish contentious
people with an occasion of debate. It is also possible, that the second
temptation did not follow the first, nor the third the second, in immediate
succession, but that some interval of time elapsed. This is even more probable,
though the words of Luke might lead to the conclusion, that there was no long
interval:for he says, that Christ obtained repose for a time.
But the main question for our consideration is, what
was Satan’s object in this kind of temptation? That will be best
determined, as I have lately hinted, by our Lord’s reply to Satan. To meet
the stratagem of the enemy, and to repel his attack, Christ interposes, as a
shield, these words: Thou shalt
not tempt the Lord thy God. Hence it is
evident, that the stratagems of the enemy were intended to induce Christ to
exalt himself unduly, and to rise, in a daring manner, against God. Satan had
formerly attempted to drive Christ to despair, because he was destitute of food,
and of the ordinary means of life. Now, he exhorts him to indulge a foolish and
vain confidences,—to neglect the means which are in his powers,—to
throw himself, without necessity, into manifest danger,—and, as we might
say, to overleap all bounds. As it is not proper for us to be discouraged, when
we are pressed by “the want of all things,”
(<052857>Deuteronomy
28:57,) but to rely with confidence on God, neither are we at liberty to raise
our crests, or ascend higher than God permits us. The design of Satan, we have
now ascertained, was to induce Christ to make trial of his divinity, and to rise
up, in foolish and wicked rashness, against
God.
6.
He will charge his angels
concerning thee. We must observe this
malice of Satan, in misapplying a quotation of Scripture, for the purpose of
rendering life deadly to Christ, and of converting bread into poison. The same
kind of stratagem he continues daily to employ; and the Son of God, who is the
universal model of all the godly, chose to undergo this contest in his own
person, that all may be industriously on their guard against being led, by a
false application of Scripture, into the snares of Satan. And undoubtedly the
Lord grants such a permission to our adversary, that we may not remain in
indolent ease, but may be more careful to keep watch. Nor ought we to imitate
the madness of those who throw away Scripture, as if it admitted of every kind
of interpretation, because the devil misapplies it. For the same reason, we
ought to abstain from food, to avoid the risk of being poisoned. Satan profanes
the Word of God, and endeavors to torture it for our destruction. But it has
been ordained by God for our salvation; and shall the purpose of God be
frustrated, unless our indolence deprive his word of its saving
effect?
We need not dispute long on these matters. Let us
only inquire, what Christ enjoins on us by his example, which we ought to follow
as a rule. When Satan wickedly tortures Scripture, does Christ give way to him?
Does he allow him to seize and carry off the Scripture, with which he formerly
armed himself? On the contrary, he quotes Scripture in his turn, and boldly
refutes Satan’s wicked slander. Whenever Satan shall cover his deception
by Scripture, and ungodly men shall labor to subvert our faith by the same
means, let us borrow our armor exclusively from Scripture for the protection of
our faith.
Though the promise,
he will charge his angels
concerning thee, (Psalm 91:11,) relates to all
believers, yet it belongs peculiarly to Christ, who is the Head of the whole
Church, possesses authority over angels, and commits to them the charge of us.
Satan is not wrong in proving from this passage, that angels have been given to
Christ, to wait on him, to guard him, and to bear him on their hands. But the
fallacy lies in this, that he assigns a wandering and uncertain course to that
guardianship of angels, which is only promised to the children of God, when they
keep themselves within their bounds, and walk in their
ways.
If there is any force in that expression,
in all thy
ways, (Psalm 91:11,) the prophet’s
meaning is wickedly corrupted and mutilated by Satan, when he applies it, in a
violent and wild and confused manner, to extravagant and mistaken courses. God
commands us to walk in our
ways, and then declares that angels will
be our guardians: Satan brings forward the guardianship of angels, for the
purpose of advising Christ to put himself unnecessarily in danger, as if he
would say: “If you expose yourself to death, contrary to the will of God,
angels will protect your life.”
7.
It is written, Thou shalt not
tempt the Lord thy God. The reply of
Christ is most appropriate. There is no other way, in which we have a right to
expect the assistance promised in that passage, than when believers humbly
submit themselves to his guidance: for we cannot rely on his promises, without
obeying his commandments. God is
tempted
in many ways: but in this passage, the word
tempt
denotes the neglect of those means which he puts into our hands. Those who
leave the means which God recommends, and resolve to make trial of his power and
might, act as absurdly as if one were to cut off a man’s arms and hands,
and then order him to work. In short, whoever desires to make an experiment of
the divine power, when there is no necessity for it,
tempts
God by subjecting his promises to an
unfair trial.
8.
The devil taketh him to a
very high mountain. We must keep in
mind, what I have already stated, that it was not owing to any weakness of
Christ’s nature, but to a voluntary dispensation and permission, that
Satan produced this effect upon his eyes. Again, while his senses were moved and
powerfully affected by the glory of the kingdoms which was presented to them, no
inward desire arose in his mind; whereas the lusts of the flesh, like wild
beasts, are drawn, and hurry us along, to the objects which please us: for
Christ had the same feelings with ourselves, but he had no irregular appetites.
The kind of temptation here described was, that Christ should seek, in another
manner than from God, the inheritance which he has promised to his children. And
here the daring insolence of the devil is manifested, in robbing God of the
government of the world, and claiming it for himself.
All these
things, says he,
are
mine, and it is only through me that
they are obtained.
We have to contend every day with the same imposture:
for every believer feels it in himself and it is still more clearly seen in the
whole life of the ungodly. Though we are convinced, that all our support, and
aid, and comfort, depend on the blessing of God, yet our senses allure and draw
us away, to seek assistance from Satan, as if God alone were not enough. A
considerable portion of mankind disbelieve the power and authority of God over
the world, and imagine that every thing good is bestowed by Satan. For how comes
it, that almost all resort to wicked contrivances, to robbery and to fraud, but
because they ascribe to Satan what belongs to God, the power of enriching whom
he pleases by his blessing? True, indeed, with the mouth they ask that God will
give them daily
bread,
(<400611>Matthew
6:11) but it is only with the mouth; for they make Satan the distributor of all
the riches in the world.
10.
Depart,
Satan. Instead of this, Luke has,
Depart behind me,
Satan. There is no use for speculating
about the phrase, behind
me, which Christ addressed to Peter,
Go behind
me,
(<401623>Matthew
16:23,) as if the same words had not been addressed to Satan. Christ simply bids
him go away;
f299 and now proceeds with the same
kind of defense as before, employing Scripture as a shield, not of reeds, but of
brass. He quotes a passage from the law, that God alone is to be adored and
worshipped,
(<050613>Deuteronomy
6:13; 10:20.) From the application of that passage, and from the circumstances
in which it is introduced, it is easy to conclude what is the design of
adoration of God, and in what it consists.
Papists deny that God only ought to be adored; and
evade this and similar passages by sophistical arguments.
Latria,
(latrei>a,)
they admit, is adoration, which ought to be given to God alone: but
Dulia,
(doulei>a,)
is an inferior kind of adoration, which they bestow on dead men, and on their
bones and statues. But Christ rejects this frivolous distinction, and claims for
God alone
prosku>nhsiv,
worship;
by which he warns us to attend more to the matter than to expressions, when
we have to do with the worship of God.
Scripture enjoins us to
worship God
alone: we must inquire, for what end? If
a man takes any thing from his glory, and ascribes it to creatures, this is a
heinous profanation of divine worship. But it is very evident that this is done,
when we go to creatures, to receive from them those good things, of which God
desired to be acknowledged as the only Author. Now, as religion is strictly
spiritual, and the outward acknowledgment of it relates to the body, so not only
the inward worship, but also the outward manifestation of it, is due to God
alone.
f300
11.
Then the devil leaveth
him. Luke expresses more:
when all the temptation had been
finished. This means, that no truce or
relaxation was granted to Christ, till he had been fully tried by every species
of contest. He adds, that Christ was
left for a season
only. This is intended to inform us, that the
rest of his life was not entirely free from
temptations,
but that God restrained the power of Satan, so that Christ was not
unseasonably disturbed by him. In like manner, God usually acts towards all his
people: for, after permitting them to be sharply tried, he abates, in some
measure, the violence of the strife, that they may take breath for a little, and
gather courage. What immediately follows,
the angels waited on
him, I understand as referring to
comfort, that Christ might feel, that God the Father took care of him, and
fortified him, by his powerful assistance, against Satan. For the very solitude
might aggravate the dreariness of his condition, when he was deprived of the
kind offices of men, and was with
the wild beasts,—a
circumstance which is expressly mentioned by Mark. And yet we must not
suppose, that Christ was ever forsaken by the angels: but, in order to allow an
opportunity for temptation, the grace of God, though it was present, was
sometimes hidden from him, so far as respects the feeling of the
flesh.
MATTHEW 4:12, 17; MARK
1:14-15;
LUKE 3:19-20;
4:14
|
MATTHEW 4:12,
17
|
MARK
1:14-15
|
LUKE
3:19-20
|
|
12. And when Jesus heard that
Jesus had been delivered up,
f301
he withdrew into Galilee.
17. From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent
ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
|
14. Now after that John had been
imprisoned, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the Gospel of the kingdom of God:
15. And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God
is at hand: repent ye, and believe the Gospel.
|
19. Now Herod the tetrarch, when
he was reproved by him for Herodias, his brother’s wife, and for all the
wicked actions which Herod did, 20. Added also this above
all, and shut up John in
prison.
LUKE 4:14-15
14. And Jesus returned
by the power of the Spirit into Galilee, and a report went out through the whole
country concerning him. 15. And he taught in their
synagogues, and was glorified by all.
|
Luke 3:19.
Now Herod the
tetrarch. Luke alone explains the reason
why Herod threw John into prison: though we shall afterwards find it mentioned
by
<401403>Matthew
14:3, and
<410617>Mark
6:17. Josephus says, (Ant. 18:v. 2,) that Herod, dreading a popular insurrection
and a change of the government, shut up John in the castle of Macherus, (because
he dreaded the man’s influence;
f302 ) and that Herodias was married,
not to Philip, who was Salome’s husband, but to another Herod. But as his
recollection appears to have failed him in this matter, and as he mentions also
Philip’s death out of its proper place, the truth of the history will be
obtained, with greater certainty, from the Evangelists, and we must abide by
their testimony.
f303 It is well known, that Herod,
though he had been married to a daughter of Aretas, King of Arabia, fell in love
with Herodias, his niece, and carried her off by fraud. This injury might
possibly enough remain unrevenged by his brother Philip, to whom the same
Josephus bears testimony, that he was a person of a mild and gentle disposition,
(18:4:6.)
This history shows clearly, what sort of reward
awaits the faithful and honest ministers of the truth, particularly when they
reprove vices: for scarcely one in a hundred bears reproof, and if it is at all
severe, they break out into fury. If pride of this sort displays itself in some
of the common people, we have no reason to wonder, that cruelty to reprovers
assumes a more hideous form in tyrants,
f304 who brook nothing worse than to
be classed with other men. We behold in John an illustrious example of that
moral courage, which all pious teachers ought to possess, not to hesitate to
incur the wrath of the great and powerful, as often as it may be found
necessary: for he, with whom there is acceptance of persons, does not honestly
serve God. When Luke says, he
added this to all the evil
actions which he did, he means, that
Herod’s malice is become desperate, and has reached its utmost height,
when the sinner is enraged by remedies, and not only refuses correction, but
takes vengeance on his adviser, as if he had been his
enemy.
Matthew 4:12.
When Jesus had
heard. These words envers le peuple, et
pourtant se doutoit de luy.”—”Because he knew that he was a
man of great authority among the people, and therefore had doubts about him
appear to be at variance with the narrative of the Evangelist John, who
declares, that John and Christ discharged the office of public teachers at the
same time. But we have to observe, that our three Evangelists pass over in
silence that short space of time, because John’s course was not yet
completed, and because that course was intended to be a preparation for
receiving the Gospel of Christ. And, in point of fact, though Christ discharged
the office of teacher within that period, he did not, strictly speaking, begin
to preach the
Gospel, till he succeeded to John. Most
properly, therefore, do the three Evangelists admit and declare, that the
period, during which John prepared disciples for Christ, belonged to his
ministry: for it amounts to this, that, when the dawn was passed, the sun arose.
It is proper to observe the mode of expression employed by Luke, that Jesus came
in the
power, or,
by the power, of the Spirit
into Galilee: for it is of great
consequence, that we do not imagine Christ to have any thing about him that is
earthly or human, but that our minds be always occupied, and our feelings
affected by his heavenly and divine
power.
Mark 1:14.
Preaching the Gospel of the
kingdom of God. Matthew appears to
differ a little from the other two: for, after mentioning that Jesus left his
own city Nazareth, and departed to Capernaum, he says:
from that time Jesus began to
preach. Luke and Mark, again, relate,
that he taught publicly in his own country. But the solution is easy; for the
words which Matthew employs,
ajpo<
to>te,
from that
time, ought to be viewed as referring,
not to what immediately precedes, but to the whole course of the narrative.
Christ, therefore, entered into the exercise of his office, when he arrived at
Galilee. The summary of doctrine which is given by Matthew is not at all
different from what, we have lately seen, was taught by John: for it consists of
two
parts,—repentance,
and the announcement of grace and salvation. He exhorts the Jews to
conversion, because the kingdom
of God is at hand: that is, because God
undertakes to govern his people, which is true and perfect happiness. The
language of Mark is a little different,
The kingdom of God is at hand:
repent ye, and believe the Gospel But
the meaning is the same: for, having first spoken of the restoration of the
kingdom of God among the Jews, he exhorts them to repentance and
faith.
But it may be asked, since
repentance
depends on the Gospel, why does Mark separate it from the
doctrine
of the Gospel? Two reasons may be assigned. God sometimes invites us to
repentance, when nothing more is meant, than that we ought to change our life
for the better. He afterwards shows, that conversion and “newness of
life”
(<450604>Romans
6:4) are the gift of God. This is intended to inform us, that not only is our
duty enjoined on us, but the grace and power of obedience are, at the same time,
offered. If we understand in this way the preaching of John about repentance,
the meaning will be:” The Lord commands you to turn to himself; but as you
cannot accomplish this by your own endeavors, he promises the Spirit of
regeneration, and therefore you must receive this grace by faith.” At the
same time, the faith, which he enjoins men to give to the Gospel, ought not, by
any means, to be confined to the gift of renewal, but relates chiefly to the
forgiveness of sins. For John connects repentance with faith, because God
reconciles us to himself in such a manner, that we serve him as a Father in
holiness and righteousness.
Besides, there is no absurdity in saying, that
to believe the
Gospel is the same thing as to embrace a
free righteousness: for that special relation, between faith and the forgiveness
of sins, is often mentioned in Scripture; as, for example, when it teaches, that
we are justified by faith,
(<450501>Romans
5:1.) In which soever of these two ways you choose to explain this passage, it
still remains a settled principle, that God offers to us a free salvation, in
order that we may turn to him, and live to righteousness. Accordingly, when he
promises to us mercy, he calls us to deny the flesh. We must observe the
designation which Paul gives to the Gospel,
the kingdom of
God: for hence we learn, that by the
preaching of the Gospel the
kingdom of God is set up and established
among men, and that in no other way does God reign among men. Hence it is also
evident, how wretched the condition of men is without the
Gospel.
Luke 4:15.
He was glorified by
all. This is stated by Luke for the
express purpose of informing us, that, from the very commencement, a divine
power shone in Christ, and compelled even those, who cherished a malignant
spirit of contradiction, to join in admiring him.
LUKE 4:16-22
|
LUKE
4:16-22
|
|
16. And he came to Nazareth, where
he had been brought up, and entered, according to his custom, on the
Sabbath-day, into the synagogue, and rose up to read. 17. And
the book of Isaiah the Prophet was delivered to him, and, having opened the
book, he found the passage where it was written, 18. The
Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me: he hath sent me to
preach the Gospel to the poor, to heal the broken in
heart,
f305
to preach forgiveness to the captives and sight
to the blind, to loose by forgiveness those who are bruised,
19. To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
20. Then, when he had closed the book, he returned it to the
minister, and sat down: and the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed
on him. 21. And he began to say to them, To-day this
Scripture hath been fulfilled in your ears. 22. And all gave
him testimony, and wondered at the discourses of grace which proceeded out of
his mouth, and said, Is not this the son of Joseph?
|
16.
And he came to
Nazareth. The Evangelists are very
careful to show by what sort of proofs Christ became known, a striking instance
of which is here related by Luke. By explaining a passage in Isaiah, and
applying it to the instruction which was immediately required, he turned upon
him the eyes of all. He entered,
according to his custom, into the synagogue.
Hence
we conclude, that not only did he address the people in the open streets and
highways, but, as far as he had opportunity, observed the usual order of the
church. We see also that, though the Jews were become very degenerate, though
every thing was in a state of confusion, and the condition of the church was
miserably corrupted, one good thing still remained: they read the Scriptures
publicly, and took occasion from them to teach and admonish the
people.
Hence also it is evident, what was the true and
lawful method of keeping the
Sabbath. When God commanded his people
to abstain from working on that day, it was not that they might give themselves
up to indolent repose, but, on the contrary, that they might exercise themselves
in meditating on his works. Now, the minds of men are naturally blind to the
consideration of his works, and must therefore be guided by the rule of
Scripture. Though Paul includes the
Sabbath
in an enumeration of the shadows of the law,
(<510216>Colossians
2:16,) yet, in this respect, our manner of observing it is the same with that of
the Jews: the people must assemble to hear the word, to public prayers, and to
the other exercises of religion. It was for this purpose that the Jewish Sabbath
was succeeded by the Lord’s Day.
Now, if we make a comparison of dates, this passage
will be sufficient to prove clearly, that the corruptions of the Papal
Hierarchy, in our own time, are more shocking and detestable than those which
existed among the Jews under the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas. For the
reading of Scripture, which was then in use, has not only grown obsolete under
the Pope, but is driven from the churches by fire and sword; with this
exception, that such portions of it, as they think proper, are chanted by them
in an unknown tongue. Christ rose
up to read, not only that his voice
might be better heard, but in token of reverence: for the majesty of Scripture
deserves that its expounders should make it apparent, that they proceed to
handle it with modesty and reverence.
17.
He found the
passage. There is no doubt that Christ
deliberately selected this passage. Some think that it was presented to him by
God; f306
but, as a liberty of choice was allowed him, I choose to say that, by his
own judgment, he took this passage in preference to others. Isaiah there
predicts that, after the Babylonish captivity, there will still be witnesses of
the grace of God, who shall gather the people from destruction, and from the
darkness of death, and restore, by a spiritual power, the Church, which has been
overwhelmed by so many calamities. But as that redemption was to be proclaimed
in the name and authority of Christ alone, he uses the singular number, and
speaks in the name of Christ, that he may more powerfully awaken the minds of
the godly to strong confidence. It is certain, that what is here related belongs
properly to Christ alone, for two reasons: first, because he alone was
endued with the fullness of the Spirit,
(<430334>John
3:34,) to be the witness and ambassador of our reconciliation to God; (and, for
this reason, Paul
(<490217>Ephesians
2:17) assigns peculiarly to him, what belongs to all the ministers of the
Gospel, namely, that he, came and preached peace to them which were afar off,
and to them that were nigh:”) secondly, because he alone, by the
power of his Spirit, performs and grants all the benefits that are here
promised.
18.
The Spirit of the Lord is
upon me. These words inform us that,
both in his own person and in his ministers, Christ does not act by human
authority, or in a private capacity, but has been sent by God to restore
salvation to his Church. He does nothing by the suggestion or advice of men, but
everything by the guidance of the Spirit of God; and this he declares, in order
that the faith of the godly may be founded on the authority and power of God.
The next clause, because he hath
anointed me, is added by way of
explanation. Many make a false boast, that they have the Spirit of God, while
they are destitute of his gifts: but Christ proves by the
anointing,
as the effect, that he is endued with the Spirit of God. He then states the
purpose for which the graces of the Spirit were bestowed upon him. It was,
that he might preach the Gospel
to the poor. Hence we conclude, that
those, who are sent by God to preach the Gospel, are previously furnished with
necessary gifts, to qualify them for so important an office. It is, therefore,
very ridiculous that, under the pretense of a divine calling, men totally unfit
for discharging the office should take upon themselves the name of pastors. We
have an instance of this in the Papacy, where mitred bishops, who are more
ignorant than as many asses, proudly and openly vaunt, that they are
Christ’s Vicars, and the only lawful prelates of the Church. We are
expressly informed, that the Lord anoints his servants, because the true and
efficacious preaching of the Gospel, as Paul says, does not lie “in the
enticing words of man’s wisdom,” but in the heavenly power of the
Spirit.
To the
poor. The prophet shows what would be
the state of the Church before the manifestation of the Gospel, and what is the
condition of all of us without Christ. Those persons to whom God promises
restoration are called
poor,
and
broken,
and
captives,
and
blind,
and
bruised.
The body of the people was oppressed by so many miseries, that these
descriptions applied to every one of its members. Yet there were many who,
amidst their poverty, blindness, slavery, and death, flattered themselves, or
were insensible to their condition. The consequence was, that few were prepared
to accept this grace.
And, first, we are here taught what is the
design of the preaching of the Gospel, and what advantage it brings to us. We
were altogether overwhelmed by every kind of evils: but there God cheers us by
his life-giving light, to rescue us from the deep abyss of death, and to restore
us to complete happiness. It tends, in no ordinary degree, to recommend the
Gospel, that we obtain from it inestimable advantage. Secondly, we see
who are invited by Christ, and made partakers of promised grace. They are
persons, who are every way miserable, and destitute of all hope of salvation.
But we are reminded, on the other hand, that we cannot enjoy those benefits
which Christ bestows, in any other manner, than by being humbled under a deep
conviction of our distresses, and by coming, as hungry souls, to seek him as our
deliverer: for all who swell with pride, and do not groan under their
captivity,,
nor are displeased with their
blindness,
lend a deaf ear to this prediction, and treat it with
contempt.
19.
To preach the acceptable year
of the Lord. Many think that here the
prophet makes an allusion to the Jubilee, and I have no objection to that view.
But it is proper to observe, that he purposely anticipates a doubt, which might
disturb and shake weak minds, while the Lord held them in suspense, by delaying
so long the promised salvation. He therefore makes the time of redemption to
depend on the purpose, or good pleasure, of God. “In an acceptable time
have I heard thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee.” Paul
calls it the fullness of the time,
(<480404>Galatians
4:4,) that believers may learn not to indulge in excessive curiosity, but to
acquiesce in the will of God,—and that we may rest satisfied with the
conviction, that salvation was manifested in Christ, at the time which seemed
good in the sight of God.
20.
The eyes of all who were in
the synagogue. God touched their hearts,
I doubt not, with astonishment, which made them more attentive, and induced them
to listen to Christ, while he was speaking. For they must have been withheld
from opposing this discourse at the commencement, or breaking it off in the
midst, when they were sufficiently disposed, as we shall see, to treat Christ
with contempt.
21.
Today is
fulfilled. Christ did not merely affirm
in a few words, but proved by a reference to facts, that the time was now come,
when it was the will of God to restore his ruined church. The object of his
discourse was, to expound the prediction clearly to his hearers: just as
expositors handle Scripture in a proper and orderly manner, when they apply it
to the circumstances of those whom they address. He says that it was
fulfilled in their
ears, rather than
in their
eyes, because the bare sight of the fact
was of little value, if doctrine had not held the chief
place.
22.
And all gave testimony to
him. Here Luke draws our attention,
first, to the truly divine grace, which breathed in the lips of Christ; and then
presents a lively picture of the ingratitude of men. Using a Hebrew idiom, he
calls them discourses of
grace,—that is,
discourses
which manifested the power and
grace
of the Holy Spirit. The inhabitants of Nazareth are thus compelled to
acknowledge and admire God speaking in Christ; and yet they voluntarily refuse
to render to the heavenly doctrine of Christ the honor which it deserves.
Is not this the son of
Joseph? Instead of regarding this
circumstance as an additional reason for glorifying God, they bring it forward
as an objection, and wickedly make it a ground of offense, that they may have
some plausible excuse for rejecting what is said by
the son of
Joseph. Thus we daily see many who,
while they are convinced that what they hear is the word of God, seize on
frivolous apologies for refusing to obey it. And certainly the only reason why
we are not affected, as we ought to be, by the power of the Gospel, is, that we
throw hinderances in our own way, and that our malice quenches that light, the
power of which we are unwilling to acknowledge.
LUKE 4:23-30
|
LUKE
4:23-30
|
|
23. And he saith to them, Ye will
altogether
f307
say to me this comparison, Physician, heal
thyself: whatsoever things we have heard done in Capernaum, do thou also here in
thy country. 24. And he saith, Verily, I say to you, No
prophet is acceptable in his own country. 25. But in truth I
say to you, There were many widows, in the days of Elijah, in Israel, when
heaven was shut up three years and six months, so that there was great famine
through all the land; 26. And to none of them was Elijah
sent, but to a woman, a widow, in Zarephath of Zidon. 27. And
there were many lepers in Israel, in the time of Elisha the prophet, and not one
of them was cleansed, but Naaman, a Syrian. 28. And all were
filled with wrath in the synagogue, hearing these things,
29. And rose up, and drove him out of the city, and led him
to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him
down.
f308
30. And he, passing through
the midst of them, went away.
f309
|
23.
Physician, heal
thyself. From the words of Christ it may
be easily inferred, that he was treated with contempt by the inhabitants of
Nazareth: for he states publicly those thoughts, which he knew to exist in their
minds. He afterwards imputes to them the blame of his declining to work miracles
among them, and charges them with malice, in bestowing no honor on a prophet of
God. The objection, which he anticipates, is this: “There is no reason to
wonder, if his countrymen hold him in little estimation, since he does not
dignify his own country, as he does other places, by working miracles; and,
consequently, it is but a just revenge, if his own countrymen, whom he treats
with less respect than all others, are found to reject him.” Such is the
meaning of the common proverb, that a physician ought to begin with himself, and
those immediately connected with him, before he exhibits his skill in healing
others. The amount of the objection is, that Christ acts improperly, in paying
no respect to his own country, while he renders other cities of Galilee
illustrious by his miracles. And this was regarded by the inhabitants of
Nazareth as a fair excuse for rejecting him in their
turn.
24.
Verily, I say to
you. He reproaches them with the blame
of preventing him from exerting his power among them as he did in other places,
by working miracles: for the unbelief of men presents an obstruction to God, and
hinders him from working, as might be desired, for their salvation,
(<401358>Matthew
13:58;
<410605>Mark
6:5.) Christ could not perform any miracle among them, because “they did
not believe on him,”
(<431237>John
12:37.) Not that it is in the power of men to bind the hands of God, but that he
withholds the advantage of his works from those who are rendered unworthy of
them by their infidelity. The answer given by Christ amounts to this: “If
you wish to have a share in miracles, why do you not give place to God? or
rather, why do you proudly reject the minister of his power? You receive,
therefore, a just reward for your contempt, when I pass by you, and give a
preference to other places, for proving by miracles, that I am the Messiah of
God, who have been appointed to restore the church.”
And, certainly, it was intolerable ingratitude that,
when God was pleased to have his Son brought up in their city, such a person,
who had been among them from his infancy, was despised. Justly, therefore, did
he withdraw his hand, that it might not be exposed to the derision of those
wicked despisers.
f310 Hence we learn what value the
Lord puts on his word, when, in order to punish for the contempt of it, he takes
from the midst of us those favors, which are the testimonies of his presence.
With respect to that saying, no
prophet is acceptable in his own country,
the reader may consult what I have said on a saying of the same import,
recorded by the Evangelist John: “A prophet hath no honor in his own
country,”
(<430444>John
4:44.)
25.
There were many
widows. After throwing back upon
themselves the blame of their being deprived of miracles, he produces two
examples to prove, that they ought not to think it strange, if God prefers
strangers to the inhabitants of the country, and that they ought not to find
fault with him for obeying the call of God, as was formerly done by Elijah and
Elisha. He throws out an indirect hint as to their vanity and presumption, in
entertaining a dislike of him, because he had been brought up among them.
When there was a great famine for
three years and a half, there were many widows in
Israel, whose want of food Elijah was
not commanded to relieve, but he
was sent to a woman, who belonged to a
foreign nation,
Zidon,
(<111709>1
Kings 17:9.) In like manner,
Elisha
healed no
lepers
among his countrymen, but he healed
Naaman, a
Syrian,
(<120510>2
Kings 5:10.)
Though his reproofs strike the inhabitants of
Nazareth with peculiar severity, yet he charges the whole nation with
ingratitude, because, for a long period, almost all of them had proceeded to
more shameful contempt of the Lord, in proportion as he had approached nearer to
them. For how did it come about, that a woman, who was a foreigner, was
preferred by God to all the Israelites, but because the prophet had been
rejected by them, and compelled to seek refuge in a heathen land? And why did
God choose that Naaman, a
Syrian, should be healed by
Elisha,
but to put a disgrace on the nation of Israel? The meaning, therefore, is,
that the same thing happens now as in former times, when God sends his power to
a great distance among foreigners, because he is rejected by the inhabitants of
the country.
Meanwhile, Christ intimates that, though he is
despised by his countrymen, his glory is in no degree diminished: because God
will still be able, to their shame and confusion, to dignify and exalt his Son,
as he formerly gave honor to his prophets in the midst of the Gentiles. In this
way the foolish glorying in the flesh is repressed, when we see the Lord rain,
not only where and when he pleases, but in distant corners, to the neglect of
that country which he had chosen for his residence. Hence, also, may be
collected the general doctrine that we have no right to prescribe any rule to
God in disposing his benefits, so as to prevent him from rejecting those who
hold the highest rank, and conferring honor on the lowest and most contemptible;
and that we are not at liberty to oppose him, when he entirely subverts that
order, which would have approved itself to our judgment. Our attention is, no
doubt, drawn to a contrast between Israel and the heathen nations: but still we
ought to hold, that none are chosen, in preference to others, for their own
excellence, but that it proceeds rather from the wonderful purpose of God, the
height and depth of which, though the reason may be hidden from us, we are bound
to acknowledge and adore.
28.
Were filled with
wrath. They perceived that the object of
those two examples, which Christ had produced, was to show, that the grace of
God would be removed from them to others:
f311 and therefore they considered
that he had spoken to their dishonor. But, instead of having their consciences
stung to the quick, and seeking a remedy for their vices by correcting them,
they are only driven to madness. Thus ungodly men not only resist, with
obstinacy, the judgments of God, but rise into cruelty against his servants.
Hence it is evident, how forcible are the reproofs which proceed from the Spirit
of God: for the minds of those who would willingly evade
them,
f312 are inflamed with rage. Again,
when we see that the minds of men are so envenomed, that they become mad against
God, whenever they are treated with some degree of roughness, we ought to
implore the Spirit of meekness,
(<480523>Galatians
5:23,) that we may not be driven, by the same fury, into such a destructive
war.
f313
30.
But he, passing through the
midst of them. When Luke says, that
Jesus passed through the middle of the crowd, and so escaped out of their hands,
he means that God rescued him, by an extraordinary miracle, from immediate
death. This example teaches us that, though our adversaries may prevail so far,
that our life may seem to be placed at their disposal, yet that the power of God
will always be victorious to preserve us, so long as he shall be pleased to keep
us in the world, either by tying their hands, or by blinding their eyes, or by
stupifying their minds and hearts.
MATTHEW
4:13-16
|
MATTHEW
4:13-16
|
|
13. And having left Nazareth, he
came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is a town on the sea-coast in the borders of
Zebulun and Naphtali, 14. That it might be fulfilled, which
was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, 15. The land of
Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, near the way of the sea, beyond Jordan,
Galilee of the Gentiles: 16. The people who
sat
f314
in darkness have seen a great light: and to
those who sat in the region and shadow of death light hath
arisen.
|
13.
And having left
Nazareth. I have thought it proper to
introduce this passage of Matthew, immediately after Luke’s narrative,
which we have just examined; because we may gather from the context that, as
Christ had hitherto been wont to frequent the town of Nazareth, so, in order to
avoid danger, he now bade a final adieu to it, and dwelt in Capernaum and the
neighboring towns. There would be no difficulty in this history, were it not
that there is some appearance, as if Matthew had put a wrong meaning on the
quotation from the prophet. But if we attend to the true meaning of the prophet,
it will appear to be properly and naturally accommodated to the present
occasion. Isaiah, after having described a very heavy calamity of the nation,
soothes their grief by a promise that, when the nation shall be reduced to
extremity, a deliverance will immediately follow, which shall dispel the
darkness, and restore the light of life.
The words are:
“Nevertheless, the
dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly
afflicted the land of Zebulun, and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more
grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the
nations. The people that walked in darkness shall see a great light”
(<230901>Isaiah
9:1,2.)
The Israelites had been twice visited by a heavy
calamity: first, when four tribes, or thereby, were carried away into
banishment, by Tiglath-Pileser,
(<121529>2
Kings 15:29;) and, secondly, when Shalmaneser completed the destruction of the
kingdom of Israel,
(<121809>2
Kings 18:9.) There remained a third desolation, which—the prophet had
foretold towards the close of the eighth chapter—would be the most
dreadful of all. And now follows, in the words which we have quoted, what is
calculated to soothe their grief. God will stretch out his hand to his people,
and, therefore, death will be more tolerable than the previous diseases were.
“Though the whole nation,” says he, “shall be
destroyed, yet so brilliant shall be the light of grace, that there will be less
dimness in this last destruction than in the two former instances, when the ten
tribes were ruined.”
The promise ought to be extended, I have no doubt, to
the whole body of the people, which might seem to be, to all appearance, lost
and destroyed. It is very absurd in the Jews to confine it to the deliverance of
the city of Jerusalem. as if the light of life had been restored to it, when the
siege was raised by the flight of King
Sennacherib,
f315 (2 Kings 19: 36.) Certainly, it
is evident from the context, that the prophet looks much farther; and, as he
promises a universal restoration of the whole church, it follows that
the land of Zebulun, and the land
of Naphtali, and Galilee of the Gentiles,
are included in the number of those, to whom the darkness of death would be
changed into the light of life. The commencement of this light, and, as we might
say, the dawn, was the return of the people from Babylon. At length, Christ,
“the Sun of Righteousness,”
(<390402>Malachi
4:2,) arose in full splendor, and, by his coming, utterly
“abolished”
(<550110>2
Timothy 1:10) the darkness of death.
In the same manner, Paul reminds us, that it was a
fulfillment of what occurs in many passages of the prophets,
“Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead,”
(<490514>Ephesians
5:14.) Now, we know that the kingdom of Christ is spiritual, and, therefore, the
light of salvation which it brings, and all the assistance which we derive from
it, must correspond to its nature. Hence it follows, that our souls are plunged
in the darkness of everlasting death, till he enlightens them by his grace. The
prophet’s discourse relates, no doubt, to the destruction of the nation,
but presents to us, as in a mirror, what is the condition of mankind, until they
are delivered by the grace of Christ. When
those, who lay in
darkness, are said to
have seen a great
light, a change so sudden and remarkable
is intended to enlarge our views of the greatness of the divine salvation. Lower
Galilee is called Galilee of the
Gentiles, not only on account of its
vicinity to Tyre and Sidon, but because its inhabitants were a mixture of Jews
and Gentiles, particularly after that David had granted some cities to King
Hiram. f316
MATTHEW 4:18-25; MARK 1:16-20;
LUKE 5:1-11
|
MATTHEW
4:18-25
|
MARK
1:16-20
|
LUKE
5:1-11
|
|
18. And Jesus, walking near the
sea of Galilee, saw two brothers, Simon surnamed Peter, and Andrew his brother,
casting a net into the sea; for they were fishers. 19. And he
saith to them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.
20. And they, having left their nets, immediately followed
him. 21. And advancing thence, he saw other two brothers,
James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in the ship with Zebedee their
father, mending their nets: and he called them. 22. And they
immediately, having left the ship and their father, followed him.
23. And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their
synagogues, and preaching the Gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease,
and every illness among the people. 24. And the report of him
spread into the whole of Syria: and they brought to him all who were ill and
afflicted with various diseases and torments, and demoniancs, and lunatics, and
those that had palsy, and he healed them. 25. And great
multitudes followed him from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem,
and from Judea, and from the country beyond Jordan.
|
16. Now, as he was walking near
the sea of Galilee, he seeth Simon and Andrew his brother, casting a net into
the sea: for they were fishers. 17. And Jesus said to them,
Follow me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.
18. And immediately having left their nets, they followed
him. 19. And advancing thence a little, he saw James the son
of Zebedee, and John his brother, who themselves also were mending their nets in
the ship. 20. And immediately he called them: and they,
having left their father Zebedee in the ship with the
workmen,
f317
followed him.
|
1. And it happened, while the
crowd was pressing upon him, that they might hear the word of God, and he stood
near the lake of Gennesaret, 2. And he saw two ships
standing
f318
at the lake: and the fishers had gone down out
of them, and were washing their nets. 3. And entering into
one of the ships, which was Simon’s, he asked him to draw it a little from
the land: and sitting down, he taught the multitudes out of the ship.
4. And when he ceased to speak, he said to Simon, Pull out to
the deep, and loose your nets for catching. 5. And Simon
answering said to him, Master, laboring through the whole night, we have taken
nothing: yet at thy word I will loose the net. 6. And when
they had done this, they inclosed a great multitude of fishes: and their net was
broken. 7. And they made signs to their companions, who were
in the other ship, that they might come and help them. And they came, and filled
both the ships, so that they were sinking. 8. Which when
Simon Peter had seen, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, Depart from
me, O Lord, for I am a sinful man.
f319
9. For astonishment had
overpowered him, and all were with him, on account of the draught of fishes
which they had taken: 10. And in like manner James and John,
sons of Zebedee, who were companions of Simon. And Jesus saith to Simon, Fear
not: for henceforth thou shalt catch men. 11. And having
brought the ships to land, and having left all, they followed
him.
|
Matthew 4:18.
And Jesus
walking. As this history is placed by
Luke after the two miracles, which we shall afterwards see, an opinion has
commonly prevailed, that the miracle, which is here related by him, was
performed some time after that they had been called by
Christ.
f320 But the reason, which they
allege, carries little weight: for no fixed and distinct order of dates was
observed by the Evangelists in composing their narratives. The consequence is,
that they disregard the order of time, and satisfy themselves with presenting,
in a summary manner, the leading transactions in the life of Christ. They
attended, no doubt, to the years, so as to make it plain to their readers, in
what manner Christ was employed, during the course of three years, from the
commencement of his preaching till his death. But miracles, which took place
nearly about the same time, are freely intermixed: which will afterwards appear
more clearly from many examples.
f321
That it is the same history, which is given by the
three Evangelists, is proved by many arguments: but we may mention one, which
will be sufficient to satisfy any reader, who is not contentious. All the three
agree in stating, that Peter and Andrew, James and John, were made apostles. If
they had been previously called, it would follow that they were apostates, who
had forsaken their Master, despised their calling, and returned to their former
occupation. There is only this difference between Luke and the other two, that
he alone relates the miracle, which the others omit. But it is not uncommon with
the Evangelists, to touch slightly one part of a transaction, and to leave out
many of the circumstances. There is, therefore, no absurdity in saying, that a
miracle, which is related by one, has been passed over by the other two. And we
must bear in mind what John says, that, out of the innumerable miracles
“which Jesus did,”
(<432125>John
21:25,) a part only has been selected, which was sufficient to prove his divine
power, and to confirm our faith in him. There is therefore no reason to wonder,
if the calling of the four apostles is slightly touched by Matthew and Mark,
while the occasion of it is more fully explained by
Luke.
Luke 5:1.
He stood near the
lake. Matthew and Mark, according to the
usual custom of their language, call it
the sea of
Galilee. The proper name of this lake
among the ancient Hebrews was
trnk,
(Chinnereth;
f322 ) but, when the language became
corrupted, the word was changed to
Gennesaret.
Profane authors call it
Gennesar;
and that part, which lay towards Galilee, was called by them
the sea of
Galilee. The bank, which adjoined to
Tiberias, received its name from that city. Its breadth and situation will be
more appropriately discussed in another place. Let us now come to the fact here
related.
Luke says, that Christ entered into a ship which
belonged to Peter, and withdrew
to a moderate distance from the land,
that he might more conveniently address from it the multitudes, who flocked
from various places to hear him; and that, after discharging the office of
teaching, he exhibited a proof of his divine power by a miracle. It was no
unusual thing, indeed, that fishers cast their nets, on many occasions, with
little advantage: and that all their fruitless toil was afterwards recompensed
by one successful throw. But it was proved to be a miracle by this circumstance,
that they had taken nothing during the whole night, (which, however, is more
suitable for catching fish,) and that suddenly
a great multitude of
fishes was collected into their nets,
sufficient to fill the ships. Peter and his companions, therefore, readily
conclude that a
take,
so far beyond the ordinary quantity, was not accidental, but was bestowed on
them by a divine interposition.
Luke 5:5.
Master, toiling all the night, we
have taken nothing. The reason why Peter
calls him
Master
unquestionably is, that he knows Christ to be accustomed to discharge the
office of a
Teacher,
and is moved with reverence toward him. But he has not yet made such
progress as to deserve to be ranked among his disciples: for our sentiments
concerning Christ do not render him sufficient honor, unless we embrace his
doctrine by the obedience of faith, and know what he requires from us. He has
but a slender perception —if he has any at all—of the value of the
Gospel; but the deference which he pays to Christ is manifested by this, that,
when worn out by fruitless toil, he commences anew what he had already attempted
in vain. Yet it cannot be denied, that he highly esteemed Christ, and had the
highest respect for his authority. But a particular instance of faith, rendered
to a single command of Christ, would not have made Peter a Christian, or given
him a place among the sons of God, if he had not been led on, from this first
act of submission, to a full obedience. But, as Peter yielded so readily to the
command of Christ, whom he did not yet know to be a Prophet or the Son of God,
no apology can be offered for our disgraceful conduct, if, while we call him our
Lord,
and
King,
and
Judge,
(Isaiah 33:22,) we do not move a finger to perform our duty, to which
we have ten times received his commands.
Luke
5:6. They inclosed a great
multitude of fishes. The design of the
miracle undoubtedly was, to make known Christ’s divinity, and thus to
induce Peter and others to become his disciples. But we may draw from this
instance a general instruction, that we have no reason to be afraid lest our
labor should not be attended by the blessing of God and desirable success, when
it is undertaken by the authority and guidance of Christ. Such was the
multitude of
fishes, that
the ships were
sinking, and the minds of the spectators
were thus excited to admiration: for it must have been in consequence of the
divine glory of Christ manifested by this miracle, that his authority was fully
acknowledged.
Luke 5:8.
Depart from me, O
Lord. Although men are earnest in
seeking the presence of God, yet, as soon as God appears, they must be struck
with terror, and almost rendered lifeless by dread and alarm, until he
administers consolation. They have the best reason for calling earnestly on God,
because they cannot avoid feeling that they are miserable, while he is absent
from them: and, on the other hand, his presence is appalling, because they begin
to feel that they are nothing, and that they are overpowered by an immense mass
of evils. In this manner, Peter views Christ with reverence in the miracle, and
yet is so overawed by his majesty, that he does all he can to avoid his
presence. Nor was this the case with Peter alone: for we learn, from the
context, that astonishment had
overpowered all who were with him. Hence
we see, that it is natural to all men to tremble at the presence of God. And
this is of advantage to us, in order to humble any foolish confidence or pride
that may be in us, provided it is immediately followed by soothing consolation.
And so Christ relieves the mind of Peter by a mild and friendly reply,
saying to him, Fear
not. Thus Christ sinks his own people in
the grave, that he may afterwards raise them to
life.
f323
Luke 5:10.
For afterwards thou shalt catch
men. The words of Matthew are,
I will make you fishers of
men; and those of Mark are, I
will cause that you may become
fishers of men. They teach us, that
Peter, and the other three, were not only gathered by Christ to be his
disciples, but were made apostles, or, at least, chosen with a view to the
apostleship. It is, therefore, not merely a general call to faith, but a special
call to a particular office, that is here described. The duties of instruction,
I do admit, are not yet enjoined upon them; but still it is to prepare them for
being instructors,
f324 , that Christ receives and admits
them into his family. This ought to be carefully weighed; for all are not
commanded to leave their parents and their former occupation, and
literally
f325 to follow Christ. There are some
whom the Lord is satisfied with having in his flock and his Church, while he
assigns to others their own station. Those who have received from him a public
office ought to know, that something more is required from them than from
private individuals. In the case of others, our Lord makes no change as to the
ordinary way of life; but he withdraws those four disciples from the employment
from which they had hitherto derived their subsistence, that he may employ their
labors in a nobler office.
Christ selected rough mechanics,—persons not
only destitute of learning, but inferior in capacity, that he might train, or
rather renew them by the power of his Spirit, so as to excel all the wise men of
the world. He intended to humble, in this manner, the pride of the flesh, and to
present, in their persons, a remarkable instance of spiritual grace, that we may
learn to implore from heaven the light of faith, when we know that it cannot be
acquired by our own exertions. Again, though he chose unlearned and ignorant
persons, he did not leave them in that condition; and, therefore, what he did
ought not to be held by us to be an example, as if we were now to ordain
pastors, who were afterwards to be trained to the discharge of their office. We
know the rule which he prescribes for us, by the mouth of Paul that none ought
to be called to it, unless they are “apt to teach,”
(<540302>1
Timothy 3:2.) When our Lord chose persons of this description it was not because
he preferred ignorance to learning as some fanatics do, who are delighted with
their own ignorance, and fancy that, in proportion as they hate literature, they
approach the nearer to the apostles. He resolved at first, no doubt, to choose
contemptible persons, in order to humble the pride of those who think that
heaven is not open to the unlearned; but he afterwards gave to those fishers, as
an associate in their office, Paul, who had been carefully educated from his
childhood.
As to the meaning of the metaphor,
fishers of
men, there is no necessity for a minute
investigation. Yet, as it was drawn from the present occurrence, the allusion
which Christ made to
fishing,
when he spoke of the preaching of the Gospel, was appropriate: for men stray
and wander in the world, as in a great and troubled sea, till they are gathered
by the Gospel. The history related by the Evangelist John (1:37-42.) differs
from this: for Andrew, who had been one of John’s disciples, was handed
over by him to Christ, and afterwards brought his brother along with him. At
that time, they embraced him as their master, but were afterwards elevated to a
higher rank.
Matthew 4:22.
And they immediately left the
ship. The first thing that
strikes us here is the power of Christ’s voice. Not that his voice alone
makes so powerful an impression on the hearts of men: but those whom the Lord is
pleased to lead and draw to himself, are inwardly addressed by his Spirit, that
they may obey his voice. The second is, the commendation bestowed on the
docility and ready obedience of his disciples, who prefer the call of Christ to
all worldly affairs. The ministers of the Word ought, in a particular manner, to
be directed by this example, to lay aside all other occupations, and to devote
themselves unreservedly to the Church, to which they are
appointed.
Matthew 4:23.
And Jesus went about all
Galilee. The same statement is again
made by Matthew in another place, (9:35.) But though Christ was
constantly employed in performing almost innumerable miracles, we ought not to
think it strange, that they are again mentioned, twice or thrice, in a general
manner. In the words of Matthew we ought, first, to observe, that Christ never
remained in one place, but scattered every where the seed of
the
Gospel. Again, Matthew calls it
the Gospel of the
kingdom, by which
the
kingdom of God is established among men
for their salvation. True and eternal happiness is thus distinguished from the
prosperity and joys of the present life.
When Matthew says, that Christ
healed every
disease, the meaning is, that he healed
every
kind
of disease. We know, that all who were diseased were not cured; but there
was no class of diseases, that was ever presented to him, which he did not
heal.
An enumeration is given of particular kinds of
diseases,
in which Christ displayed his power.
Demoniacs
(diamonizome>noi)
is a name given in Scripture, not to all indiscriminately who are tormented by
the devil, but to those who, by a secret vengeance of God, are given up to
Satan, so that he holds possession of their minds and of their bodily senses.
Lunatics
(selhniazome>noi)
f326 is the name given to those, in
whom the strength of the disease increases or diminishes, according to the
waxing or waning of the moon, such as those who are afflicted with
epilepsy,
f327 or similar diseases. As we know,
that diseases of this sort cannot be healed by natural means, it follows that,
when Christ miraculously healed
them, he proved his
divinity.
MARK 1:21-28; LUKE
4:31-36
|
MARK
1:21-28
|
LUKE
4:31-36
|
|
21. And they entered into
Capernaum, and immediately on the Sabbaths, entering into the synagogue, he
taught. 22. And they were astonished at his doctrine; for he
was teaching them, as one invested with authority, and not as the Scribes.
23. And there was in their synagogue a man liable to an
unclean spirit, who cried out, 24. Saying, Ah! what have I to
do with thee, Jesus of Nazareth? Art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who
thou art, the Holy One of God. 25. And Jesus rebuked him,
saying, Hold they peace, and go out of him. 26. And when the
unclean spirit had torn him, and had cried with a loud voice, he went out from
him. 27. And all were astonished, so that they inquired among
themselves, saying, What is this? What new doctrine is this? for with authority
he commandeth even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.
28. And immediately his fame went out into every part of
Galilee.
|
31. And he went down to Capernaum,
a city of Galilee, and there he taught them on the Sabbath-day:
32. And they were astonished at his doctrine: for his word
was accompanied with power. 33. And there was in the
synagogue a man having a spirit of an unclean devil: and he cried out with a
loud voice, 34. Saying, Ah! what have we to do with thee,
Jesus of Nazareth? Art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the
Holy One of God. 35. And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Holy thy
peace, and go out of him. And when the devil had thrown him down in the midst,
he went out of him, and hurt him nothing. 36. And trembling
came upon all, and they talked among themselves, saying, What speech is this?
for with authority and power he commandeth the uclean spirits, and they go
out.
|
This demoniac was probably one of that multitude,
which was mentioned, a little before, by
<400424>Matthew
4:24. Yet the narrative of Mark and Luke is not superfluous: for they relate
some circumstances, which not only present the miracle in a more striking light,
but also contain useful instruction. The devil dexterously acknowledges, that
Christ is the Holy One of
God, in order to insinuate into the
minds of men a suspicion, that there was some secret understanding between him
and Christ. By such a trick he has since endeavored to make the Gospel
suspected, and, in the present day, he is continually making similar attempts.
That is the reason why Christ rebukes him. It is, no doubt, possible, that this
confession was violently extorted from him: but there is no inconsistency
between the two suppositions, that he is forced to yield to the power of Christ,
and therefore cries
out that he is
the Holy One of
God,—and yet that he cunningly
attempts to shroud in his own darkness the glory of Christ. At the same time, we
must observe that, while he flatters Christ in this manner, he indirectly
withdraws himself from his power, and in this way contradicts himself. For why
was Christ sanctified by the Father, but that he might deliver men from the
tyranny of the devil, and overturn his kingdom? But as Satan cannot endure that
power, which he feels to be destructive to himself, he would desire that Christ
should satisfy himself with an empty title, without exercising it on the present
occasion. f328
Mark 1:22; Luke 4:32.
And they were astonished at his
doctrine. The meaning of the Evangelists
is, that the power of the Spirit shone in the
preaching
f329 of Christ with such brightness,
as to extort admiration even from irreligious and cold hearers. Luke says, that
his discourse was accompanied
with power, that is, full of majesty.
Mark expresses it more fully, by adding a contrast, that it was unlike the
manner of teaching of the
Scribes. As they were false expounders
of Scripture, their doctrine was literal and dead, breathed nothing of the power
of the Spirit, and was utterly destitute of majesty. The same kind of coldness
may be now observed in the speculative theology of Popery. Those masters do
indeed thunder out whatever they think proper in a sufficiently magisterial
style; but as their manner of discoursing about divine things is so profane,
that their controversies exhibit no traces of religion, what they bring forward
is all affectation and mere drivelling: for the declaration of the Apostle Paul
holds true, that the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power,
(<460420>1
Corinthians 4:20.) In short, the Evangelists mean that, while the manner of
teaching, which then prevailed, was so greatly degenerated and so extremely
corrupted, that it did not impress the minds of men with any reverence for God,
the preaching of Christ was eminently distinguished by the divine power of the
Spirit, which procured for him the respect of his hearers. This is the
power,
or rather the majesty and
authority,
at which the people were astonished.
See
Calvin on “Mr 1:22”
Luke
4:33. A man having a spirit
of an unclean devil. This mode of
expression, which Luke employs, conveys the idea, that the man was driven by the
impulse of the devil. By the permission of God, Satan had seized the faculties
of his soul in such a manner, as to drive him not only to speak, but to perform
other movements, at his pleasure. And thus, when the
demoniacs
speak, the devils, who have received permission to tyrannise, speak in them
and by them. The title, Holy One
of God, was probably taken from a manner
of speaking, which was, at that time, in ordinary and general use. The Messiah
was so called, because he was to be distinguished and separated from all others,
as endued with eminent grace, and as the Head of the whole
Church.
Mark 1:26.
When the unclean spirit had torn
him. Luke uses a milder phrase,
when the devil had thrown him
down: but they agree perfectly as to the
meaning; for the design of both was to show, that the devil went out of the man
in a violent manner. He threw down the unhappy man, as if he had intended to
tear him: but Luke says that the attempt was unsuccessful; for
he hurt him
nothing. Not that the attack was, in no
degree whatever, attended by injury, or at least by some feeling of pain; but
that the man was afterwards delivered from the devil, and restored to perfect
health.
Luke 4:36.
And trembling came upon
all. This is the result of the miracle.
They are compelled to acknowledge that there is in Christ something more than
man, and justly trace the glory and power of the miracle to his doctrine.
What speech is
this, they say, which even the devils
themselves are forced to obey?
What new doctrine is
this?
(<410127>Mark
1:27.) They call it
new
doctrine, not by way of reproach, but as an acknowledgment, that there was
something in it unusual and extraordinary. It is not for the sake of blame, or
to lessen its credit, that they speak of it as
new.
This is rather a part of their admiration, that they pronounce it to be not
common or ordinary. Their only fault lies in this, that they remain in their
state of hesitation,
f330 whereas the children of God ought
to make increasing progress.
MATTHEW 8:14-18; MARK 1:29-39;
LUKE 4:38-44
|
MATTHEW
8:14-18
|
MARK
1:29-39
|
LUKE
4:38-44
|
|
14. And when Jesus had come into
Peter’s house, he saw his mother-in-law lying in bed, and afflicted with
fever. 15. And he touched her hand, and the fever left her,
and she arose and waited on them. 16. And when the evening
had approached, they brought to him many demoniacs, and he cast out the spirits
by his word, and healed all that were diseased: 17. That it
might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, when he saith, He
hath taken our diseases. 18. And when Jesus had seen great
multitudes around him, he commanded that they should depart to the other
side.
|
29. And immediately going out of
the synagogue, they came, with James and John, into the house of Simon and
Andrew. 30. And Simon’s mother-in-law lay afflicted
with fever and immediately they speak to him about her.
31. And approaching, he raised her, by taking her hand, and
the fever immediately left her, and she waited on them.
32. And in the evening, when the sun had set, they brought to
him all who were diseased, and who were possessed by devils.
33. And the whole city was assembled at the door.
34. And hehealed many that were ill of various diseases, and
cast out many devils: and he did not permit the devils to say that they knew
him. 35. And in the morning, while it was still very dark,
Jesus, when he had risen, went out, and departed into a desert place, and there
prayed. 36. And Simon followed him, as also those who were
with him. 37. And when they had found him, they said to him,
All seek thee. 38. And he saith to them, Let us go into the
adjoining villages, that I preach there also: for on this account I came out.
39. And he preached in their synagogues in all Galilee, and
cast out devils.
|
38. And when Jesus had risen out
of the synagogue, he entered into Simon’s house. And Simon’s
mother-in-law was held by a great fever, and they besought him for her.
39. And standing over her, he rebuked the fever, and the
fever left her: and immediately rising, she waited on them.
40. And when the sun was setting, all, who had persons
laboring under various diseases, brought them to him: and he, laying hands upon
each, healed them. 41. And the devils went out of many,
crying and saying, Thou art Christ, the Son of God. And, rebuking, he did not
permit them to speak those things, that they knew that he was Christ.
42. And when it was day, going out, he went into a desert
place, and multitudes sought him: and came even to him, and held him, that he
might not depart from them. 43. To whom he saith, I must also
preach the kingdom of God in other cities: for on this account am I sent.
44. And he preached in the synagogues of
Galilee.
|
Mark 1:29.
They came, with James and John,
into the house of Simon and Andrew.
There is reason to conjecture, that Matthew does not relate this history in
its proper order: for Mark expressly states, that there were only four disciples
who attended Christ. Besides, when he left the synagogue, he went straight to
Peter’s house; which also shows clearly, that Matthew did not observe,
with exactness, the order of time. The Evangelists appear to have taken
particular notice of this miracle; not that, in itself, it was more remarkable,
or more worthy of being recorded, than other miracles,—but because, by
means of it, Christ gave to his disciples a private and familiar illustration of
his grace. Another reason was, that the healing of one woman gave occasion to
many miracles, so that they came to him in great numbers, from every direction,
to implore his assistance. A single word, in Luke’s narrative, presents to
us more strikingly the power which Christ displayed; for he says, that
Simon’s
mother-in-law
was held by
a GREAT
fever.
It was a clearer and more affecting proof of divine power, that, in a
moment, and by a single touch, he removed a strong and violent disease. He might
have done it by the slightest expression of his will; but he
touched her
hand,
(<400815>Matthew
8:15,) either to mark his affection, or because he was aware that this sign
was, at that time, advantageous: for we know, that he freely used outward signs,
when the time required them.
Luke 4:39.
He rebuked the
fever. To a person not well acquainted
with Scripture this mode of expression may appear harsh; but there were good
reasons for employing it.
Fevers
and other diseases, famine, pestilence, and calamities of every description,
are God’s heralds,
f331 by whom he executes his
judgments. Now, as he is said to send such messengers by his command and
pleasure, so he also restrains and recalls them whenever he pleases. The manner
in which he healed them is not mentioned by Matthew and Mark: but Luke says,
that it was by laying hands on
each of them. Under the Law, this was a
sign of reconciliation; and, therefore, it was not improperly, or unseasonably,
that Christ laid
hands on those whom he freed from the
curse of God. It was also a solemn rite of consecration, as will afterwards be
more fully explained. But I interpret Christ’s
laying
hands on the sick, as meaning simply,
that he recommended them to the Father, and thus obtained for them grace and
deliverance from their diseases.
Matthew
8:17. That it might be
fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the
prophet. This prediction has the
appearance of being inappropriate, and even of being tortured into a meaning
which it does not bear: for Isaiah does not there speak of miracles, but of the
death of Christ,—and not of temporal benefits, but of spiritual and
eternal grace. Now, what is undoubtedly spoken about the impurities of the soul,
Matthew applies to bodily diseases. The solution is not difficult, if the reader
will only observe, that the Evangelist states not merely the benefit conferred
by Christ on those sick persons, but the purpose for which he healed their
diseases. They experienced in their bodies the grace of Christ, but we must look
at the design: for it would be idle to confine our view to a transitory
advantage, as if the Son of God were a physician of bodies. What then? He gave
sight to the blind, in order to show that he is “the light of the
world,”
(<430812>John
8:12.) He restored life to the dead, to prove that he is “the resurrection
and the life,”
(<431125>John
11:25.) Similar observations might be made as to those who were lame, or had
palsy. Following out this analogy, let us connect those benefits, which Christ
bestowed on men in the flesh, with the design which is stated to us by Matthew,
that he was sent by the Father, to relieve us from all evils and
miseries.
Mark 1:34.
He did not permit the devils to
speak. There might be two reasons why
he did not
permit them: a general reason, because
the time of the full revelation was not yet come; and a special reason, which we
hinted at a little ago, that he refused to have, as heralds and witnesses of his
divinity, those whose praise could have no other effect than to soil and injure
his character. This latter reason is undoubtedly true: for he must have known,
that the prince of death, and his agents, are in a state of irreconcileable
enmity with the Author of eternal salvation and
life.
Matthew 8:18.
And when Jesus had seen great
multitudes about him. Matthew, I have no
doubt, touches briefly what the others explain in a more ample and copious
narrative. The other two state a circumstance, which is not noticed by Matthew
that Christ withdrew privately, for the sake of retirement,
into a desert
place, before it was daylight. Mark
afterwards says, that Peter informed him,
all seek,
thee; and Luke says, that
multitudes
came to that place. Again, Matthew says, that
he passed over to the other
side, while the other two say, that he
passed through all
Galilee, to preach in every place. But
the other
side, or,
the farther
bank,
(to<
pe>ran,) does not, I think, denote what was
strictly the opposite side, but refers to that curvature of the lake, which was
below Capernaum. In this way, he crossed over to another part of the lake, and
yet did not go out of Galilee.
Mark1:38.
For on this account I came
out. Luke 4:43.
For on this account am I
sent. These words deserve our attention:
for they contain a declaration of his earnest desire to fulfill his office. But
it will perhaps be asked, is it better that the ministers of the Gospel should
run here and there, to give only a slight and partial taste of it in each place,
or that they should remain, and instruct perfectly the hearers whom they have
once obtained? I reply. The design of Christ, which is here mentioned, was
agreeable to the injunction and call of the Father, and was founded on the best
reasons. For it was necessary that Christ should travel, within a short period,
throughout Judea, to awaken the minds of men, on all sides, as if by the sound
of a trumpet, to hear the Gospel. But on this subject we must treat more fully
under another passage.
See Calvin on “Mr
1:38”
MARK 3:13-19;
LUKE 6:12-19
|
MARK
3:13-19
|
LUKE
4:12-19
|
|
13. And he went up into a
mountain, and called to him whom he would: and they came to him.
14. And he appointed twelve to be with him, and send them
forth to preach, 15. And to have powers of healing diseases,
and of casting out devils. 16. And to Simon he gave the name
Peter. 17. And James th son of Zebedee, and John, the brother
of James: and he gave them the names of Boanerges, which is, The sons of
thunder. 18. And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and
Matthew, and Thomas, and James (son) of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, and Simon the
Canaanite, 19. And Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed
him.
|
12. And it happened in those days,
he went out into a mountain to pray, and he spent the whole night in prayer to
God. 13. And when it was day, he called his disciples, and
chose twelve from among them, whom he also called Apostles:
14. Simon, whom he also called Peter, and Andrew his
brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, 15. Matthew
and Thomas, James (son) of Alpheus, and Simon, who is called Zelotes,
16. And Judas (brother) of James, and Judas Iscariot, who
also was the traitor. 17. And going down with them, he stood
in a plain, and a multitude of his disciples, and a very great multitude of
people out of all Judea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon.
18. Who had come to hear him, and to be healed from their
diseases, and those who were tormented by unclean spirits were healed.
19. And the whole multitude sought to touch him, for virtue
went out of him, and healed all.
|
Mark 3:13.
And he went up into a
mountain. By this election he does not
yet ordain them to be
Apostles,
to enter immediately into the discharge of their office, but merely admits
them to enjoy his private instructions
f332 with a view to the apostleship.
Commentators have fallen into a mistake here, by confounding those passages with
the tenth chapter of the Gospel by Matthew. For the plain meaning of the words
is, that they are only destined to a future commission, the bestowal of which is
recorded by Matthew; and Mark and Luke will be found afterwards relating, in its
proper place, the mission which Matthew there describes. And we need not wonder,
if their heavenly Master chose to train and accustom them gradually to so
arduous an employment: for, even by a long course of instruction, their
ignorance could not be corrected.
Both the Evangelists say, that Christ
went up into a
mountain. Luke explains the cause to
have been, that he might
pray
with greater freedom in his retirement, which he was accustomed to do
frequently, as is evident from other passages. Now, this example ought to be
regarded by us as a perpetual rule, to begin with prayer, when we are about to
choose pastors to churches: otherwise, what we attempt will not succeed well.
And certainly our
Lord
prayed, not so much on his own account, as to lay down a rule for us. We are
deficient in prudence and skill; and though our sagacity were of the highest
order, nothing is more easy than to be deceived in this matter. Granting that we
were in no danger of mistake, if the Lord does not regulate our affections, with
what force, or rather violence, shall we be carried
away f333
by favor and prepossession, or hatred or ambition? Besides, though the
election were conducted in the very best manner, all will be unsuccessful,
unless the Lord take under his guidance those who are elected, and furnish them
with the necessary gifts. “What then?” it will be said, “did
not Christ earnestly implore the Father to preside in the election?” This
I readily acknowledge, and I have also to state, that this was a declaration and
acknowledgment of his care for his Church. Accordingly, he did not pray to the
Father in the ordinary manner, but
spent the whole night in
prayer. But if he, who was full of the
Holy Spirit,
(<430334>John
3:34,) implored the Father, with such ardor and earnestness, to preside in the
election, how much greater need have we to do so?
He called to him whom he
would. By this expression, I have no
doubt, Mark conveys to us the instruction, that it was to the unmixed grace of
Christ, and not to any excellence of their own, that they were indebted for
receiving so honorable an office: for, if you understand him to say, that those
were chosen, who were more excellent than others, this will not apply to Judas.
The meaning, therefore, is the apostle-ship was not bestowed on account of any
human merits; but, by the free mercy of God, persons, who were altogether
unworthy of it, were raised to that high rank; and thus was fulfilled what
Christ says on another occasion,
“Ye
have not chosen me, but I have chosen you,”
(<431516>John
15:16.) To the same effect Paul frequently speaks, extolling the purpose of God
in bestowing on him the apostleship,
(<490307>Ephesians
3:7;
<510125>Colossians
1:25.)
But here many questions arise. First, why did our
Lord deliberately choose Judas, who, he perfectly knew, was unworthy of the
honor, and would be his betrayer? Secondly, why did God, after being so
earnestly supplicated by his Son, and as if he had given a refusal to Christ,
permit a base and wicked man to find his way to the highest rank in his
Church?
f334 Thirdly, why did he resolve that
the first-fruits
f335 f his Church should be stained by
so foul a disgrace? Fourthly, how came it, that Jesus Christ, knowingly and
willingly, preferred Judas to honest and faithful ministers?
The first objection is met by the following reply.
Our Lord expressly intended to prevent future offenses, that we may not feel
excessive uneasiness, when unprincipled men occupy the situation of teachers in
the Church, or when professors of the Gospel become apostates. He gave, at the
same time, in the person of one man, an instance of fearful
defection,
f336 that those who occupy a higher
rank may not indulge in self-complacency. At the same time, with regard to the
second question, we do not admit that our Lord suffered a
refusal.
f337 This answer will serve also for
the third question. At the very beginning, it was judged proper to give an early
demonstration of the future state of the Church, that weak persons might not
stumble on account of the fall of a reprobate; for it is not proper, that the
stability of the Church should depend on men. With regard to the last objection,
Christ did not prefer Judas to devout and holy disciples, but raised him to an
eminence from which he was afterwards to fall, and thus intended to make him an
example and instruction to men of every condition and of every age, that no one
may abuse the honor which God has conferred upon him, and likewise that, when
even the pillars fall, those who appear to be the weakest of believers may
remain steady.
Luke 6:13.
Whom also he named
Apostles. This may be explained in two
ways: either that, at a subsequent period, when he introduced them into their
office, he gave them this name,—or that, with a view to their future rank,
he bestowed on them this title, in order to inform them why they were separated
from the ordinary class, and for what purpose they were destined. The latter
view agrees well with the words of Mark: for he says, that Christ
appointed twelve to be with him,
and to send them forth to preach. He
intended to make them his companions, that they might afterwards receive a
higher rank: for, as I have already explained, when he says,
to be with him, and to send them
forth to preach, he does not mean that
both were to take place at the same
time.
Mark 3:16.
And to Simon he gave the name
Peter. Though all Christians must be
living
stones
f338 , of the spiritual temple, yet
Christ gave this name peculiarly to Simon, according to the measure of grace
which he intended to bestow upon him. This is not inconsistent with the shameful
weakness which he manifested in denying his Lord: for this title showed his
invincible power and steadiness, which continued till his death. Yet it is
absurd in the Papists to infer from this, that the Church is founded on him, as
will afterwards be more fully explained,
(<401618>Matthew
16:18.) Christ called the sons of Zebedee
sons of
thunder, because he was to give them a
powerful voice, that they might
thunder
throughout the whole world.
f339 And that thunder is heard, in the
present day, from the mouth of John. As to his brother, there can be no doubt
that, so long as he lived, he shook the earth. The word has been corrupted: for
the full pronunciation would be
çgr
ynb,
(Benae-regesh;
f340 but the changes which
words undergo in passing into other languages are well known.
MATTHEW 5:1-12; LUKE
6:20-26
|
MATTHEW
5:1-12
|
LUKE
6:20-26
|
|
1. And when Jesus had seen the
multitudes,
f343
he went up into a mountain, and when he had sat
down, his disciples approached to him. 2. And opening his
mouth,
f344
he taught them, saying,
3. Happy are the poor in spirit: for their is the kingdom of
heaven. 4. Happy are they who mourn: for they shall receive
consolation. 5. Happy are the mmek: for they shall receive
the earth by inheritance.
f345
6. Happy are they who hunger
and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be satisfied.
7. Happy are the merciful: for they shall obtain
mercy.
f346
8. Happy are those who are
of a pure heart: for they shall see God. 9. Happy are the
peace-makers: for they shall be called the children of God.
10. Happy are those who suffer persecution on account of
righteousness: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11. Happy
are you, when they shall throw reproaches on you, and shall persecute you, and
lying, shall speak every evil word against you on my account.
12. Rejoice ye, and leap for joy: for your reward is great in
heaven: for so did they persecute the prophets who were before
you.
|
20. And he, lifting up his eyes on
the disciples, said, Happy (are ye) poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.
21. Happy are ye who hunger now: for ye shall be satisfied.
Happy are ye who weep now: for ye shall laugh. 22. Happy
shall ye be when men shall hate you, and shall separate you, and shall load you
with reproaches, and shall cast out your name as evil, on account of the Son of
Man. 23. Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, lo,
your reward is great in heaven: for according to these things their fathers did
to the prophets. 24. But woe to you (who are) rich: for you
have your consolation. 25. Woe to you who are filled: for you
shall hunger. Woe to you who laugh now: for ye shall mourn and weep.
26. Woe to you, when all men shall applaud you: for according
to these things their fathers did to the false prophets.
|
Matthew 5:1.
He went up into a
mountain. Those who think that
Christ’s sermon, which is here related, is different from the sermon
contained in the sixth chapter of Luke’s Gospel, rest their opinion on a
very light and frivolous argument. Matthew states, that Christ spoke to his
disciples on a mountain, while Luke seems to say, that the discourse was
delivered on a plain. But it is a mistake to read the words of Luke,
he went down with them, and stood
in the plain,
(<420617>Luke
6:17,) as immediately connected with the statement that,
lifting up his eyes on the
disciples, he spoke thus. For the design
of both Evangelists was, to collect into one place the leading points of the
doctrine of Christ, which related to a devout and holy life. Although Luke had
previously mentioned a
plain,
he does not observe the immediate succession of events in the history, but
passes from miracles to doctrine, without pointing out either time or place:
just as Matthew takes no notice of the time, but only mentions the place. It is
probable, that this discourse was not delivered until Christ had chosen the
twelve: but in attending to the order of time, which I saw that the Spirit of
God had disregarded, I did not wish to be too precise. Pious and modest readers
ought to be satisfied with having a brief summary of the doctrine of Christ
placed before their eyes, collected out of his many and various discourses, the
first of which was that in which he spoke to his disciples about true
happiness.
2.
Opening his
mouth. This redundancy of expression
(pleonasmo<v)
partakes of the Hebrew idiom: for what would be faulty in other languages is
frequent among the Hebrews, to say,
He opened his
mouth, instead of,
He began to
speak. Many look upon it as an emphatic
mode of expression, employed to draw attention to any thing important and
remarkable, either in a good or bad sense, which has been uttered: but as some
passages of Scripture countenance an opposite view, I prefer the former
exposition. I shall also dismiss the ingenious speculation of those, who give an
allegorical turn to the fact of our Lord teaching his disciples on a mountain,
as if it had been intended to teach them to elevate their minds far above
worldly cares and employments. In ascending the mountain, his design rather was
to seek a retreat, where he might obtain relaxation for himself and his
disciples at a distance from the multitude.
Now let us see, in the first place, why Christ spoke
to his disciples about true
happiness. We know that not only the
great body of the people, but even the learned themselves, hold this error, that
he is the happy man who is free from annoyance, attains all his wishes, and
leads a joyful and easy life. At least it is the general opinion, that happiness
ought to be estimated from the present state.
f347 Christ, therefore, in order to
accustom his own people to bear the cross, exposes this mistaken opinion, that
those are happy who lead an easy and prosperous life according to the flesh. For
it is impossible that men should mildly bend the neck to bear calamities and
reproaches, so long as they think that patience is at variance with a happy
life. The only consolation which mitigates and even sweetens the bitterness of
the cross and of all afflictions, is the conviction, that we are happy in the
midst of miseries: for our patience is
blessed
by the Lord, and will soon be followed by a happy result.
This doctrine, I do acknowledge, is widely removed
from the common opinion: but the disciples of Christ must learn the philosophy
of placing their happiness beyond the world, and above the affections of the
flesh. Though carnal reason will never admit what is here taught by Christ, yet
he does not bring forward any thing imaginary,—as the
Stoics
f348 were wont, in ancient times, to
amuse themselves with their paradoxes,—but demonstrates from the fact,
that those persons are truly happy, whose condition is supposed to be miserable.
Let us, therefore remember, that the leading object of the discourse is to show,
that those are not unhappy who are oppressed by the reproaches of the wicked,
and subject to various calamities. And not only does Christ prove that they are
in the wrong, who measure the happiness of man by the present state, because the
distresses of the godly will soon be changed for the better; but he also exhorts
his own people to patience, by holding out the hope of a
reward.
3.
Happy are the poor in
spirit.
<420620>Luke
6:20.
Happy
(are ye)
poor.
Luke gives nothing more than a simple metaphor: but as the poverty of many
is accursed and unhappy, Matthew expresses more clearly the intention of Christ.
Many are pressed down by distresses, and yet continue to swell inwardly with
pride and cruelty. But Christ pronounces those to be happy who, chastened and
subdued by afflictions, submit themselves wholly to God, and, with inward
humility, betake themselves to him for protection. Others explain
the poor in
spirit to be those who claim nothing for
themselves, and are even so completely emptied of confidence in the flesh, that
they acknowledge their poverty. But as the words of Luke and those of Matthew
must have the same meaning, there can be no doubt that the appellation
poor
is here given to those who are pressed and afflicted by adversity. The only
difference is, that Matthew, by adding an epithet, confines the happiness to
those only who, under the discipline of the cross, have learned to be
humble.
For theirs is the kingdom of
heaven. We see that Christ does not
swell the minds of his own people by any unfounded belief, or harden them by
unfeeling obstinacy, as the Stoics do, but leads them to entertain the hope of
eternal life, and animates them to patience by assuring them, that in this way
they will pass into the heavenly kingdom of God. It deserves our attention, that
he only who is reduced to nothing in himself, and relies on the mercy of God, is
poor in
spirit: for they who are broken or
overwhelmed by despair murmur against God, and this proves them to be of a proud
and haughty
spirit.
4.
Happy are they that
mourn. This statement is closely
connected with the preceding one, and is a sort of appendage or confirmation of
it. The ordinary belief is, that calamities render a man unhappy. This arises
from the consideration, that they constantly bring along with them
mourning
and grief. Now, nothing is supposed to be more inconsistent with happiness
than
mourning.
But Christ does not merely affirm that
mourners
are not unhappy. He shows, that their very
mourning
contributes to a
happy
life, by preparing them to receive eternal joy, and by furnishing them with
excitements to seek true
comfort
in God alone. Accordingly, Paul says,
“We glory in
tribulations also knowing that tribulation produces patience, and patience
experience, and experience hope: and hope maketh not ashamed,”
(<450503>Romans
5:3-5.)
5.
Happy are the
meek. By
the
meek he means persons of mild and gentle
dispositions, who are not easily provoked by injuries, who are not ready to take
offense, but are prepared to endure anything rather than do the like actions to
wicked men. When Christ promises to such persons
the inheritance of the
earth, we might think it exceedingly
foolish. Those who warmly repel any attacks, and whose hand is ever ready to
revenge injuries, are rather the persons who claim for themselves the dominion
of the earth. And experience certainly shows that, the more mildly their
wickedness is endured, the more bold and insolent does it become. Hence arises
the diabolical proverb, that “We must howl with the wolves, because the
wolves will immediately devour every one who makes himself a sheep.” But
Christ places his own protection, and that of the Father, in contrast with the
fury and violence of wicked men, and declares, on good grounds, that
the
meek will be the lords and
heirs of the
earth. The children of this world never
think themselves safe, but when they fiercely revenge the injuries that are done
them, and defend their life by the “weapons of war,”
(<263227>Ezekiel
32:27.) But as we must believe, that Christ alone is the guardian of our life,
all that remains for us is to “hide ourselves under the shadow of his
wings,”
(<191708>Psalm
17:8.) We must be sheep, if we wish to be reckoned a part of his
flock.
It will perhaps be objected, that what has been now
said is contradicted by experience. I would first suggest that it be considered,
how greatly ferocious
f349 people are disturbed by their own
restlessness. While they lead so stormy a life, though they were a hundred times
lords of the earth, while they possess all, they certainly possess nothing. For
the children of God, on the other hand, I answer, that though they may not plant
their foot on what is their own, they enjoy a quiet residence on the earth. And
this is no imaginary possession;
f350 for they know, that the earth,
which they inhabit, has been granted to them by God. Besides, the hand of God is
interposed to protect them against the violence and fury of wicked men. Though
exposed to every species of attack, subject to the malice of wicked men,
surrounded by all kinds of danger, they are safe under the divine protection.
They have already a foretaste, at least, of this grace of God; and that is
enough for them, till they enter, at the last day, into the possession of the
inheritance
f351 of the
world.
6.
Happy are they who
hunger. To
hunger and
thirst is here, I think, used as a
figurative expression,
f352 and means to suffer poverty, to
want the necessaries of life, and even to be defrauded of one’s right.
Matthew says, who thirst after
righteousness, and thus makes one class
stand for all the rest. He represents more strongly the unworthy treatment which
they have received, when he says that, though they are anxious, though they
groan, they desire nothing but what is proper. “Happy are they who, though
their wishes are so moderate, that they desire nothing to be granted to them but
what is reasonable, are yet in a languishing condition, like persons who are
famishing with hunger.” Though their distressing anxiety exposes them to
the ridicule of others, yet it is a certain preparation for
happiness:
for at length they shall be
satisfied. God will one day listen to
their groans, and satisfy their just desires for to Him, as we learn from the
song of the Virgin, it belongs to
fill the hungry with good
things,
(<420153>Luke
1:53.)
7.
Happy are the
merciful. This paradox, too, contradicts
the judgment of men.
f353 The world reckons those men to be
happy,
who give themselves no concern about the distresses of others, but consult
their own ease. Christ says that those are
happy,
who are not only prepared to endure their own afflictions, but to take a
share in the afflictions of others,—who assist the wretched,—who
willingly take part with those who are in distress,—who clothe themselves,
as it were, with the same affections, that they may be more readily disposed to
render them assistance. He adds,
for they shall obtain
mercy,—not only with God, but also
among men, whose minds God will dispose to the exercise of
humanity.
f354 Though the whole world may
sometimes be ungrateful, and may return the very worst reward to those who have
done acts of kindness to them, it ought to be reckoned enough, that grace is
laid up with God for the merciful and humane, so that they, in their turn, will
find him to be gracious and
merciful,
(<19A308>Psalm
103:8; 145:8.)
8.
Happy are they who are of a
pure heart. We might be apt to think,
that what is here stated by Christ is in accordance with the judgment of all.
Purity of
heart is universally acknowledged to be
the mother of all virtues. And yet there is hardly one person in a hundred, who
does not put craftiness in the place of the greatest virtue. Hence those persons
are commonly accounted
happy,
whose ingenuity is exercised in the successful practice of deceit, who gain
dexterous advantages, by indirect means, over those with whom they have
intercourse. Christ does not at all agree with carnal reason, when he pronounces
those to be
happy,
who take no delight in cunning, but converse sincerely with men, and express
nothing, by word or look, which they do not feel in their heart. Simple people
are ridiculed for want of caution, and for not looking sharply enough to
themselves. But Christ directs them to higher views, and bids them consider
that, if they have not sagacity to deceive in this world, they will enjoy
the sight of
God in
heaven.
9.
Happy are the
peacemakers. By
peacemakers
he means those who not only seek peace and avoid quarrels, as far as lies in
their power, but who also labor to settle differences among others, who advise
all men to live at peace, and take away every occasion of hatred and strife.
There are good grounds for this statement. As it is a laborious and irksome
employment to reconcile those who are at variance, persons of a mild
disposition, who study to promote peace, are compelled to endure the indignity
of hearing reproaches, complaints, and remonstrances on all sides. The reason
is, that every one would desire to have advocates, who would defend his cause.
That we may not depend on the favor of men, Christ bids us look up to the
judgment of his Father, who is the God of peace,
(<451533>Romans
15:33,) and who accounts us his children, while we cultivate peace, though our
endeavors may not be acceptable to men: for
to be
called means TO BE ACCOUNTED
the children of
God.
10.
Happy are they who suffer
persecution. The disciples of Christ
have very great need of this instruction; and the more hard and disagreeable it
is for the flesh to admit it, the more earnestly ought we to make it the subject
of our meditation. We cannot be Christ’s
soldiers
f355 on any other condition, than to
have the greater part of the world rising in hostility against us, and pursuing
us even to death. The state of the matter is this. Satan, the prince of the
world, will never cease to fill his followers with rage, to carry on hostilities
against the members of Christ. It is, no doubt, monstrous and unnatural, that
men, who study to live a righteous life, should be attacked and tormented in a
way which they do not deserve. And so Peter says,
“Who is he that
will harm you,
if ye be followers
of that which is good?”
(<600313>1
Peter 3:13.)
Yet, in consequence of the unbridled wickedness of
the world, it too frequently happens, that good men, through a zeal of
righteousness, arouse against them the resentments of the ungodly. Above all, it
is, as we may say, the ordinary lot of Christians to be hated by the majority of
men: for the flesh cannot endure the doctrine of the Gospel; none can endure to
have their vices reproved.
Who suffer on account of
righteousness. This is descriptive of
those who inflame the hatred, and provoke the rage, of wicked men against them,
because, through an earnest desire to do what is good and right, they oppose bad
causes and defend good ones, as far as lies in their power. Now, in this
respect, the truth of God justly holds the first rank. Accordingly, by this mark
Christ distinguishes his own martyrs from criminals and
malefactors.
I now return to what I said a little before, that as,
all that will live godly in Christ Jesus “(Paul informs us), shall suffer
persecution,”
(<550312>2
Timothy 3:12,) this admonition has a general reference to all the godly. But if,
at any time, the Lord spares our weakness, and does not permit the ungodly to
torment us as they would desire, yet, during the season of repose and leisure,
it is proper for us to meditate on this doctrine, that we may be ready, whenever
it shall be necessary, to enter the field, and may not engage in the contest
till we have been well prepared. As the condition of the godly, during the whole
course of this life, is very miserable, Christ properly calls them to the hope
of the heavenly life. And here lies the main difference between Christ’s
paradox and the ravings of the Stoics, who ordered that every man should be
satisfied in his own mind, and should be the author of his own happiness: while
Christ does not suspend our happiness on a vain imagination, but rests it on the
hope of a future reward.
11.
When they shall cast
reproaches on you.
<420622>Luke
6:22. When men shall
hate you, and separate you, and load you with
reproaches,
and cast out your name as
evil. By these words Christ intended to
comfort those who believe in him; that they may not lose courage, even though
they see themselves to be detestable in the eyes of the world. For this was no
light temptation, to be thrown out of the Church as ungodly and profane. Christ
knew that there is no class of men more envenomed than hypocrites, and foresaw
with what furious madness the enemies of the Gospel would attack his small and
despised flock. It was therefore his will to furnish them with a sure defense,
that they might not give way, though an immense mass of reproaches were ready to
overwhelm them. And hence it appears, how little reason there is to dread the
excommunication of the Pope, when those tyrants banish us from their synagogues,
because we are unwilling to renounce
Christ.
12.
Rejoice ye, and leap for
joy. The meaning is, a remedy is at
hand, that we may not be overwhelmed by unjust reproaches: for, as soon as we
raise our minds to heaven, we there behold vast grounds of joy, which dispel
sadness. The idle reasonings of the Papists, about the word
reward,
which is here used, are easily refuted: for there is not (as they dream) a
mutual relation between the reward and merit, but the promise of the
reward
is free. Besides, if we consider the imperfections and faults of any good
works that are done by the very best of men, there will be no work which God can
judge to be worthy of reward.
We must advert once more to the phrases,
on my
account, or,
on account of the Son of
Man,
(<420622>Luke
6:22;) and lying, shall speak
every evil word against you; that he who
suffers persecution for his own fault
(<600220>1
Peter 2:20) may not forthwith boast that he is a martyr of Christ, as the
Donatists, in ancient times, were delighted with themselves on this single
ground, that the magistrates were against them. And in our own day the
Anabaptists,
f356 while they disturb the Church by
their ravings, and slander the Gospel, boast that they are carrying the banners
of Christ, when they are justly condemned. But Christ pronounces those only to
be happy who are employed in defending a righteous cause.
For so did they
persecute. This was expressly added,
that the apostles might not expect to triumph without exertion and without a
contest, and might not fail, when they encountered persecutions. The restoration
of all things, under the reign of Christ, being everywhere promised in
Scripture, there was danger, lest they might not think of warfare, but indulge
in vain and proud confidence. It is evident from other passages, that they
foolishly imagined the kingdom of Christ to be filled with wealth and
luxuries.
f357 Christ had good reason for
warning them, that, as soon as they succeeded to the place of the prophets, they
must sustain the same contests in which the prophets were formerly engaged.
The prophets who were before
you. This means not only, that
the prophets were before
them with respect to the order of time,
but that they were of the same class with themselves, and ought therefore to be
followed as their example. The notion commonly entertained, of making out nine
distinct beatitudes, is too frivolous to need a long
refutation.
Luke 6:24.
Woe to you that are
rich. As Luke has related not more than
four kinds of
blessings,
so he now contrasts with them four
curses,
so that the clauses mutually correspond. This contrast not only tends to
strike terror into the ungodly, but to arouse believers, that they may not be
lulled to sleep by the vain and deceitful allurements of the world. We know how
prone men are to be intoxicated by prosperity, or ensnared by flattery; and on
this account the children of God often envy the reprobate, when they see
everything go on prosperously and smoothly with them.
He pronounces a curse on the
rich,—not
on all the rich, but on those who
receive their
consolation in the world; that is, who
are so completely occupied with their worldly possessions, that they forget the
life to come. The meaning is: riches are so far from making a man happy, that
they often become the means of his destruction. In any other point of view, the
rich are not excluded from the kingdom of heaven, provided they do not become
snares for themselves, or fix their hope on the earth, so as to shut against
them the kingdom of heaven. This is finely illustrated by Augustine, who, in
order to show that riches are not in themselves a hindrance to the children of
God, reminds his readers that poor Lazarus was received into the bosom of rich
Abraham.
25.
Woe to you who are filled.
Woe to you who laugh now. In the same
sense, he pronounces a curse on those who are
satiated and
full: because they are lifted up by
confidence in the blessings of the present life, and reject those blessings
which are of a heavenly nature. A similar view must be taken of what he says
about
laughter:
for by those who
laugh
he means those who have given themselves up to Epicurean mirth, who are
plunged in carnal pleasures, and spurn every kind of trouble which would be
found necessary for maintaining the glory of
God.
26.
Woe to you when all men shall
applaud you. The last woe is intended to
correct ambition: for nothing is more common than to seek the applauses of men,
or, at least, to be carried away by them; and, in order to guard his disciples
against such a course, he points out to them that the favor of men would prove
to be their ruin. This warning refers peculiarly to teachers, who have no plague
more to be dreaded than ambition: because it is impossible for them not to
corrupt the pure doctrine of God, when they, “seek to please men,”
(<480110>Galatians
1:10.) By the phrase, all
men, Christ must be understood to refer
to the children of the world, whose applauses are wholly bestowed on deceivers
and false prophets: for faithful and conscientious ministers of sound doctrine
enjoy the applause and favor of good men. It is only the wicked favor of the
flesh that is here condemned: for, as Paul informs us,
(<480110>Galatians
1:10,) no man who “seeks to please men” can be “the servant of
Christ.”
MATTHEW 5:13-16; MARK 9:49-50;
4:21;
LUKE 14:34-35;
8:16; 11:33
|
MATTHEW
5:13-16
|
MARK
9:49-50
|
LUKE
14:34-35
|
|
13. Ye are the salt of the earth:
but if salt shall become tasteless,
f358
with what shall it be
salted?
f359
It is good for nothing farther, than to be
thrown out and trodden down by men. 14. Ye are the light of
the world: a city placed upon a mountain cannot be hid.
15. Neither do men light a candle, and put it upon a bushel
but upon a candlestick, and it gives light to all who are in the house.
16. Let your light shine before men, so that they may see
your good works, and may glorify your Father who is in heaven.
|
49. For every (man) shall be
salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.
50. Salt is a good thing: but if salt shall become tasteless,
with what shall it be seasoned? Have salt in yourselves, and cultivate peace
with one another.
MARK
4:21
21. And he said to them, Is a
candle lighted, that it may be put under a bushel, or under a bed? Is it not
that it may be put on a candlestick?
|
34. Salt is good: but if salt
shall have become tasteless, with what shall it be seasoned?
35. It is not useful either for the
land
f360
or for the dunghill: they throw it out. He who
hath ears to hear, let him hear.
LUKE
8:16
16. And no man, when he hath
lighted a candle, covered it with a vessel, or putteth it under a bed, but
putteth it on a candlestick, that those who enter may see the
light.
<421133>LUKE
11:33
33. No man lighteth a
candle, and putteth it in a hidden place, nor under a bushel, but on a
candlestick, that those who enter may see the light.
|
Matthew 5:13. Ye
are the salt of the
earth. What belongs to doctrine is
applied to the persons to whom the administration of it has been committed. When
Christ calls the apostles the
salt of the earth, he means, that it is
their office to salt the
earth: because men have nothing in them
but what is tasteless, till they have been seasoned with the salt of heavenly
doctrine. After having reminded them to what they are called, he pronounces
against them a heavy and dreadful judgment, if they do not fulfill their duty.
The doctrine, which has been entrusted to them, is shown to be so closely
connected with a good conscience and a devout and upright life, that the
corruption, which might be tolerated in others, would in them be detestable and
monstrous. “If other men are tasteless in the sight of God, to you shall
be given the salt which imparts a relish to them: but if you have lost your
taste, where shall you obtain the remedy which you ought to supply to
others?”
Our Lord skillfully pursues his metaphor, by saying,
that other things when they lose their original qualities, are still useful
after they have become corrupted: but that
salt
becomes even hurtful, and communicates barrenness even to
dunghills.
f361 The amount of his
statement is, that it is an incurable disease, when the ministers and teachers
of the word corrupt and render themselves tasteless: for they ought to season
the rest of the world with their salt. This warning is useful, not only to
ministers, but to the whole flock of Christ. Since it is the will of God that
the earth shall be
salted by his own word, it follows, that
whatever is destitute of this salt is, in his estimation, tasteless, how much
soever it may be relished by men. There is nothing better, therefore, than to
receive the seasoning, by which alone our tastelessness is corrected. But, at
the same time, let those whose business is to
salt
it beware lest they encourage the world in their own
folly,
f362 and still more, that they do not
infect it with a depraved and vicious
taste.
The wickedness of the Papists is therefore
intolerable:
f363 as if it had been the design of
Christ, to allow the apostles unbounded liberty, and to make them tyrants of
souls, instead of reminding them of their duty, that they might not swerve from
the right path. Christ declares what sort of men he wishes the teachers of his
Church to be. Those who, without any proper grounds, give themselves out to be
apostles,
f364 hide by this covering all the
abominations which they are pleased to introduce; because Christ pronounced
Peter, and his companions, to be
the salt of the
earth. They do not, at the same time,
consider the sharp and severe reproof which is added, that, if they become
tasteless,
they are the worst of all. This sentence is mentioned by Luke in an abrupt
manner: but is introduced there for the same purpose as in this passage, so that
it does not require a separate
exposition.
Mark 9:49.
Every man shall be salted with
fire. I have connected these words of
Mark with the passage in Matthew which we have just considered: not that I look
upon them to have altogether the same meaning, or to have been spoken at the
same place and time, but rather to enable the reader to understand better, by
means of comparison, the different applications of the same sentence. According
to Mark’s narrative, our Lord, having spoken of eternal
fire,
(<410948>Mark
9:48,) exhorts his own people, on the contrary, to offer themselves now to God
to be seasoned with fire and
salt, that they may be devoted
sacrifices,
f365 and that they may not draw upon
themselves, by their sins, that
fire
which is never extinguished. To be
salted with
fire is an incorrect phrase; but as
salt
and
fire
possess the same quality of purifying and refining, Christ applied the same
term to both. Such was the occasion on which this sentiment was uttered. It was,
that believers may not refuse to be purified by
fire
and
salt;
since, without this seasoning, they cannot be holy to God. He alludes to an
enactment of the Law:
“Every oblation of
thy meat-offering shalt thou season with salt, neither shalt thou suffer the
salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat-offering: with all
thine offerings thou shalt offer
salt,”
(<030213>Leviticus
2:13.)
But now he shows, that believers are salted by the
word of the Gospel, that they may be sanctified.
He next adds,
salt is
good. This extends generally to all,
whom God has once been pleased to season with his own word. He exhorts them to
retain always their savor. To give the name of
salt
to what is
salted
is rather a harsh metaphor, but it creates no doubt as to the meaning. When
men have lost, by their carelessness, that savor which they obtained by the
grace of God, there is no farther remedy. Those who lose their faith, by which
they were consecrated to God, and become without savor, are in a desperate
condition: for the good savor cannot be acquired by any other seasoning.
Besides, those who have become corrupted, by making void the grace of God, are
worse than unbelievers, as
salt
spoils the
land and the
dunghill.
Mark
9:50. Have salt in
yourselves. This word may be taken in a
different sense from what it had in the former verse, as meaning that seasoning
of good odor, which is obtained by faith, or rather the wisdom of the Spirit.
When Paul enjoins, “Let your speech be always with grace,
seasoned with
salt,”
(<510406>Colossians
4:6,) he means, that we ought to be holy, and purified from all profane follies
and corruptions, and filled with spiritual grace, which edifies all who hear it,
and diffuses over them its sweet odor. If this exposition is adopted, it may be
necessary to understand the latter clause as referring to the mutual peace,
which is promoted by that salt. Yet, as it is more probable, that this last
sentence depends on the former discourse, I think that Christ is exhorting his
own people to maintain the rigor of faith, which may serve also to purify
others. “You must do your endeavor, not only to be
salted
within, but likewise to
salt
others.” But as salt bites by its sharpness, he immediately admonishes
them to regulate the seasoning in such a manner, that
peace
may be preserved entire with
one
another.
<400514>Matthew
5:14. Ye are the light of the
world. We are all the children of light,
after having been enlightened by faith, and are commanded to carry in our hands
“burning lamps,” (that we may not wander in darkness,) and even to
point out to others the way of life,
(<421235>Luke
12:35.) But, as the preaching of the Gospel was committed to the apostles above
others, and is now committed to the pastors of the Church, this designation is
given to them, in a peculiar manner, by Christ. “They are placed in this
rank on the condition, that they shall shine, as from an elevated situation, on
all others.”
He subjoins two comparisons.
A city placed on a mountain
cannot be concealed; and
a
candle, when it has been lighted, is
not usually
concealed, (verse 15.) This
means, that they ought to live in such a manner, as if the eyes of all were upon
them.
f367 And certainly, the more eminent a
person is, the more injury he does by a bad example, if he acts improperly.
Christ, therefore, informs the apostles, that they must be more careful to live
a devout and holy life, than unknown persons of the common rank, because the
eyes of all are directed to them, as to lighted
candles;
and that they must not be endured, if their devotion, and uprightness of
conduct, do not correspond to the doctrine of which they are ministers. Mark and
Luke appear to apply the comparison in a different manner: for there
Christ gives a general admonition, that they ought to take particular care, lest
any one, trusting to the darkness, indulge freely in sin, because what is hidden
for a time will afterwards be revealed. But perhaps the discourses related by
both of them are detached from the immediate
context.
16.
Let your light shine before
men. After having taught the apostles
that, in consequence of the rank in which they are placed, both their vices and
their virtues are better known for a good or bad example, he now enjoins them so
to regulate their life, as to excite all to glorify God.
That they may see your good
works: for, as Paul tells us, believers
must,
“provide for honest
things, not only in the sight of
God,
but also in the sight of
men,”
(<470821>2
Corinthians 8:21.)
The command, which he gives shortly afterwards, to
seek concealment and a retired situation for their good works,
(<400604>Matthew
6:4,) is intended only to forbid ostentation. In the present instance, he has
quite a different object in view, to recommend to them the glory of God alone.
Now, if the glory of good works cannot be properly ascribed to God, unless they
are traced to him, and unless he is acknowledged to be their only Author, it is
evident, that we cannot, without offering an open and gross insult to God, extol
free will, as if good works proceeded wholly, or in part, from its power. Again,
we must observe, how graciously God deals with us, when he calls the good works
ours,
the entire praise of which would justly be ascribed to
himself.
MATTHEW 5:17-19; LUKE
16:17
|
MATTHEW
5:17-19
|
LUKE
14:17
|
|
17. Think not that I am come to
destroy
f368
the Law or the Prophets: I am not come to
destroy, but to fulfil. 18. Verily, I say to you, Till heaven
and earth pass, one iota or one point
f369
shall not pass from the Law, till all are
fulfilled. 19. Whoever then shall break on of these least
commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom
of heaven: but whoever shall have done and taught them, he shall be called great
in the kingdom of heaven.
|
17. Now it is easier for heaven
and earth to pass, than for one point of the law to fail.
|
Matthew 5:17.
Think
not. With regard to the perfection of
his life, Christ might justly have maintained that he
came to fulfill the
law: but here he treats of doctrine, not
of life. As he afterwards exclaimed, that
“the kingdom of God is
come,”
(<401228>Matthew
12:28,) and raised the minds of men with unusual expectation, and even admitted
disciples by baptism, it is probable, that the minds of many were in a state of
suspense and doubt, and were eagerly inquiring, what was the design of that
novelty. Christ, therefore, now declares, that his doctrine is so far from being
at variance with the
law, that it agrees perfectly with
the law and the
prophets, and not only so, but brings
the complete
fulfillment
of them.
There appear to have been chiefly two reasons, which
induced him to declare this agreement between
the
law and the Gospel. As soon as any new
method of teaching makes its appearance, the body of the people immediately look
upon it, as if everything were to be overturned. Now the preaching of the
Gospel, as I mentioned a little ago, tended to raise the expectation, that the
Church would assume a totally different form from what had previously belonged
to it. They thought that the ancient and accustomed government was to be
abolished. This opinion, in many respects, was very dangerous. Devout
worshippers of God would never have embraced the Gospel, if it had been a revolt
from the
law; while light and turbulent spirits
would eagerly have seized on an occasion offered to them for entirely
overthrowing the state of religion: for we know in what insolent freaks rash
people are ready to indulge when there is any thing new.
Besides, Christ saw that the greater part of the
Jews, though they professed to believe the Law, were profane and degenerate. The
condition of the people was so decayed, every thing was filled with so many
corruptions, and the negligence or malice of the priests had so completely
extinguished the pure light of doctrine, that there no longer remained any
reverence for the Law. But if a new kind of doctrine had been introduced, which
would destroy the authority of
the Law and the
Prophets, religion would have sustained
a dreadful injury. This appears to be the first reason, why Christ declared that
he had not come to destroy the
Law. Indeed, the context makes this
abundantly clear: for he immediately adds, by way of confirmation, that it is
impossible for even one point of
the Law to fail,—and pronounces a
curse on those teachers who do not faithfully labor to maintain its
authority.
The second reason was, to refute the wicked slander
which, he knew was brought against him by the ignorant and unlearned. This
charge, it is evident, had been fastened on his doctrine by the scribes: for he
proceeds immediately to direct his discourse against them. We must keep in mind
the object which Christ had in view. While he invites and exhorts the Jews to
receive the Gospel, he still retains them in obedience to
the
Law; and, on the other hand, he boldly
refutes the base reproaches and slanders, by which his enemies labored to make
his preaching infamous or suspected.
If we intend to reform affairs which are in a state
of disorder, we must always exercise such prudence and moderation, as will
convince the people, that we do not oppose the eternal Word of God, or introduce
any novelty that is contrary to Scripture. We must take care, that no suspicion
of such contrariety shall injure the faith of the godly, and that rash men shall
not be emboldened by a pretense of novelty. In short, we must endeavor to oppose
a profane contempt of the Word of God, and to prevent religion from being
despised by the ignorant. The defense which Christ makes, to free his doctrine
from slanders, ought to encourage us, if we are now exposed to the same
calumnies. That crime was charged against Paul, that he was an apostate from the
law of God,
(<442121>Acts
21:21) and we need not, therefore, wonder, if the Papists endeavor, in the same
manner, to render us odious. Following the example of Christ, we ought to clear
ourselves from false accusations, and, at the same time, to profess the truth
freely, though it may expose us to unjust reproaches.
I am not come to
destroy. God had, indeed, promised a
new
covenant at the coming of Christ; but
had, at the same time, showed, that it would not be different from the first,
but that, on the contrary, its design was, to give a perpetual sanction to
the covenant, which he had made from the beginning, with his own
people.
“I will write my
law, (says he,) in their hearts, and I will remember their iniquities no
more,”
(<243133>Jeremiah
31:33, 34.) f370
By these words he is so far from departing from the
former covenant, that, on the contrary, he declares, that it will be confirmed
and ratified, when it shall be succeeded by the new. This is also the meaning of
Christ’s words, when he says, that
he came to fulfill the
law: for he actually fulfilled it, by
quickening, with his Spirit, the dead letter, and then exhibiting, in reality,
what had hitherto appeared only in figures.
With respect to doctrine, we must not imagine that
the coming of Christ has freed us from the authority of the law: for it is the
eternal rule of a devout and holy life, and must, therefore, be as unchangeable,
as the justice of God, which it embraced, is constant and uniform. With respect
to ceremonies, there is some appearance of a change having taken place; but it
was only the use of them that was abolished, for their meaning was more fully
confirmed. The coming of Christ has taken nothing away even from ceremonies,
but, on the contrary, confirms them by exhibiting the truth of shadows: for,
when we see their full effect, we acknowledge that they are not vain or useless.
Let us therefore learn to maintain inviolable this sacred tie between the law
and the Gospel, which many improperly attempt to break. For it contributes not a
little to confirm the authority of the Gospel, when we learn, that it is nothing
else than a fulfillment of the
law; so that both, with one consent,
declare God to be their Author.
18.
Till heaven and earth
pass. Luke expresses it a little
differently, but to the same import, that
it is easier for heaven and earth
to pass, than for one point of the law to
fail. The design of Christ, in both
passages, was to teach, that the truth of the law and of every part of it, is
secure, and that nothing so durable is to be found in the whole frame of the
world. Some persons indulge in ingenious refinements on the word
till,(e{wv
a} n,) as if
the passing away of the heaven
and earth, which will take place on the
last day, the day of judgment, were to put an end to
the law and the
prophets. And certainly,
as
“tongues shall then
cease, and prophecies shall be
abolished,”
(<461308>1
Corinthians 13:8,)
I think that the written law, as well as the
exposition of it, will come to an end; but, as I am of opinion that Christ spoke
more simply, I do not choose to feed the ears of readers with such amusements.
Let it suffice for us to hold, that sooner shall heaven fall to pieces, and the
whole frame of the world become a mass of confusion, than the stability of the
law shall give way. But what does it mean, that every part of the law shall be
fulfilled down to the smallest
point?
for we see, that even those, who have been regenerated by the Spirit of God,
are very far from keeping the law of God in a perfect manner. I answer, the
expression, shall not pass
away, must be viewed as referring, not
to the life of men, but to the perfect truth of the doctrine.
“There is nothing in the law that is unimportant, nothing
that was put there at, random; and so it is impossible that a single letter
shall perish.”
19.
Whoever then shall
break. Christ here speaks expressly of
the commandments of life, or the ten words, which all the children of God ought
to take as the rule of their life. He therefore declares, that they are false
and deceitful teachers, who do not restrain their disciples within obedience to
the law, and that they are unworthy to occupy a place in the Church, who weaken,
in the slightest degree, the authority of the law; and, on the other hand, that
they are honest and faithful ministers of God, who recommend, both by word and
by example, the keeping of the law.
The least
commandments is an expression used in
accommodation to the judgment of men: for though they have not all the same
weight, (but, when they are compared together, some are less than others,) yet
we are not at liberty to think any thing
small,
on which the heavenly Legislator has been pleased to issue a command. For
what sacrilege is it to treat contemptuously any thing which has proceeded from
his sacred mouth? This is to sink his majesty to the rank of creatures.
Accordingly, when our Lord calls them
little
commandments, it is a sort of
concession. He shall be called
the least. This is an allusion to what
he had just said about the
commandments:
but the meaning is obvious. Those who shall pour contempt on the doctrine of
the law, or on a single syllable of it, will be rejected as the lowest of
men. f371
The kingdom of
heaven means the renovation of the
Church, or the prosperous condition of the Church, such as was then beginning to
appear by the preaching of the Gospel. In this sense, Christ tells us, that
“he who is least
in the kingdom of
God is greater than John,”
(<420728>Luke
7:28.) The meaning of that phrase is, that God, restoring the world by
the hand of his Son, has completely established his kingdom. Christ declares
that, when his Church shall have been renewed, no teachers must be admitted to
it, but those who are faithful expounders of the law, and who labor to maintain
its doctrine entire. But it is asked, were not ceremonies among
the
commandments of God, the
least of
which we are now required to observe? I
answer, We must look to the design and object of the Legislator. God enjoined
ceremonies, that their outward use might be temporal, and their meaning eternal.
That man does not
break
ceremonies, who omits what is shadowy, but retains their effect. But if
Christ banishes from his
kingdom
all who accustom men to any contempt of the law how monstrous must be their
stupidity, who are not ashamed to remit, by a sacrilegious indulgence, what God
strictly demands, and, under the pretense of venial sin, to overthrow the
righteousness of the law.
f372 Again, we must observe the
description he gives of good and holy teachers: that not only by words, but
chiefly by the example of life, they exhort
f373 men to keep the
law.
MATTHEW
5:20-22
|
MATTHEW
5:20-22
|
|
20. For I say to you, That, unless
your righteousness shall be more abundant
f374
than that of the Scribes and the Pharisees, you
shall not enter
f375
into the kingdom of heaven.
21. You have heard that it was said to the
ancients,
f376
Thou shalt not kill: and he who shall kill shall be
liable to judgment.
f377
22. But I say to you, That every
one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment: and he who shall
say to his brother, Racha, shall be liable to the council: and he who shall say,
Fool, shall be liable to the hell of fire.
f378
|
Matthew 5:20.
Unless your righteousness shall
be more abundant. He takes a passing notice of
the
Scribes, who were laboring to throw a
stain on the doctrine of the Gospel, as if it were the ruin of the Law. True, he
does not reason on this subject, but only points out briefly, that nothing has
less influence over their minds than zeal for the law. “They pretend, that
their hostility to me arises from their strong desire, that the law should not
be violated. But their life makes it evident, how coldly they observe the
law,—nay more, how unconcerned they are about mocking
God, f379
while they boast before men of an assumed and hypocritical righteousness.”
This is the view which the most of commentators give of the
passage.
But it deserves inquiry, whether he does not rather
blame the corrupted manner of teaching, which
the Pharisees and
Scribes followed in instructing the
people. By confining the law of God to outward duties only, they trained their
disciples, like apes, to hypocrisy.
f380 They lived, I readily admit, as ill as
they taught, and even worse: and therefore, along with their corrupted doctrine,
I willingly include their hypocritical parade of false righteousness. The
principal charge brought by Christ against their doctrine may be easily learned
from what follows in the discourse, where he removes from the law their false
and wicked interpretations, and restores it to its purity. In short, the
objection which, as we have already said, was unjustly brought against him by
the Scribes, is powerfully thrown back on themselves.
We must bear in mind, what we have mentioned
elsewhere, that the Pharisees are added to the Scribes by way of enlarging on
what he had said: for that sect had, above all others, obtained a reputation for
sanctity. It is a mistake, however, to suppose, that they were called
Pharisees
on account of
division,
f381 because they
separated
themselves from the ordinary class, and claimed a rank peculiar to
themselves. They were called
µyçwrp,
that is, Expounders,
f382 because they were not satisfied
with the bare letter, but boasted of being in possession of a key to open up
hidden meanings. Hence arose an immense mass of errors, when they assumed
magisterial authority, and ventured, according to their wicked fancy and their
equally wicked pride, to thrust forward their own inventions in place of
Scripture.
21.
You have heard that it was
said. This sentence, and those which
immediately follow, are connected with what we have just considered: for our
Lord explains more fully, by minute instances, by what tortuous
methods
f382a the Pharisees debase the law, so that
their righteousness is mere filth. It is a mistake, however, to suppose that
this is an
ejpano>rqwsiv,
or
correctionf383
of the Law, and that Christ raises his disciples to a higher degree of
perfection, than Christ could raise a gross and carnal nation, which was
scarcely able to learn first principles. It has been a prevailing opinion, that
the beginning of righteousness was laid down in the ancient law, but that the
perfection of it is pointed out in the Gospel. But nothing was farther from the
design of Christ, than to alter or innovate any thing in the commandments of the
law. There God has once fixed the rule of life which he will never retract. But
as the law had been corrupted by false expositions, and turned to a profane
meaning, Christ vindicates it against such corruptions, and points out its true
meaning, from which the Jews had departed.
That the doctrine of the law not only commences, but
brings to perfection, a holy life, may be inferred from a single fact, that it
requires a perfect love of God and of our neighbor,
(<050605>Deuteronomy
6:5;
<031918>Leviticus
19:18.) He who possesses such a love wants nothing of the highest perfection. So
far as respects the rules of a holy life, the law conducts men to the goal, or
farthest point, of righteousness. Accordingly, Paul declares the law to
be weak, not in itself, but in our flesh,
(<450803>Romans
8:3.) But if Moses had given nothing more than the first lessons of true
righteousness, how ridiculous would have been that appeal!
“I call heaven and
earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death,
blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that ye may live,”
(<053019>Deuteronomy
30:19.)
Again,
“And now, Israel,
what doth the Lord thy God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, and to
walk in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the Lord thy God with all
thy heart, and with all thy soul?”
(<051012>Deuteronomy
10:12.)
Vain and deceitful, also, would have been that
promise, “The man that doeth them shall live in them,”
(<031805>Leviticus
18:5;
<451005>Romans
10:5;
<480312>Galatians
3:12.)
That Christ, on the other hand, intended to make no
correction in the precepts of the law, is very clear from other passages: for to
those who desire to enter into life by their good works, he gives no other
injunction, than to, keep the
commandments of the law,
(<401917>Matthew
19:17.) From no other source do the Apostles, as well as Christ himself, draw
the rules for a devout and holy life. It is doing a grievous injury to God, the
author of the Law, to imagine that the eyes, and hands, and feet alone, are
trained by it to a hypocritical appearance of good works, and that it is only in
the Gospel that we are taught to love God with the heart. Away, then, with that
error, “The deficiencies of the law are here supplied by Christ.” We
must not imagine Christ to be a new legislator, who adds any thing to the
eternal righteousness of his Father. We must listen to him as a faithful
expounder, that we may know what is the nature of the law, what is its object,
and what is its extent.
It now remains for us to see, what Christ condemns in
the Pharisees, and in what respect his interpretation of it differs from their
glosses. The amount of it is, that they had changed the doctrine of the law into
a political order, and had made obedience to it to consist entirely in the
performance of outward duties. Hence it came, that he who had not slain a man
with his hand was pronounced to be free from the guilt of murder, and he who had
not polluted his body by adultery was supposed to be pure and chaste before God.
This was an intolerable profanation of the law: for it is certain, that Moses
everywhere demands the spiritual worship of God. From the very nature of the law
we must conclude, that God, who gave it by the hand of Moses, spoke to the
hearts, as well as to the hands and to the eyes. True, our Lord quotes the very
words of the law; but he does so in accommodation to the view which was
generally taken of them by the people. “Till now,
the
scribes have given you a literal
interpretation of the law, that it is enough, if a man keep his hands from
murder and from acts of violence. But I warn you, that you must ascend much
higher. Love is the fulfilling of the law,
(<451310>Romans
13:10 ;)and I say that your neighbor is injured, when you act towards him
otherwise than as a friend.” The latter clause which he quotes,
he who kills shall be liable to
the judgment, confirms what I said a
little before, that Christ charges them with turning into a political scheme the
law of God, which had been given for the government of the
heart.
22.
But I say to
you. His reply is not opposed to the
command of Moses,
(<022013>Exodus
20:13;
<032421>Leviticus
24:21;
<043516>Numbers
35:16 ;) but to the interpretation usually put upon it by the scribes. Now, as
the Pharisees boasted of antiquity, (for it is always the custom to plead the
prescription of a long period in defense of
errors, f384
) Christ reminds the people of his authority, to which all antiquity ought
justly to give way. Hence we conclude, that truth is of greater weight than
custom or the number of years.
He who shall say to his
brother. Christ assigns three degrees of
condemnation besides the violence of the hands; which implies, that this precept
of the law restrains not only the hands, but all affections that are opposed to
brotherly love. “Those who shall only be angry with their brethren, or
treat them with haughty disdain, or injure them by any reproach, are
murderers.” Now, as it is certain that the word
Racha
occupies an intermediate place between
anger
and openly reproachful language, I have no doubt that it is an interjection
of contempt or disdain. Though Christ adjudges
to the hell of
fire none but those who break out into
open reproach, we must not suppose, that he declares
anger
to be free from a similar punishment; but, alluding to earthly judgments, he
assures them that God will judge and punish even concealed
anger.
f385 But, as he who manifests his
indignation by bitter language goes farther than this, Christ says, that that
man will be held guilty by the
whole heavenly council, that he may
receive severer punishment.
Those, again, who break out into reproaches are
adjudged to the hell of
fire: which implies, that hatred, and
every thing that is contrary to love, is enough to expose them to eternal death,
though they may have committed no acts of violence.
Ge]enna
(hell) is, beyond all question, a foreign
word.
ayg
(Ge) is the Hebrew word for a valley. Now, “the valley of Hin-nom”
was infamous for the detestable superstition which was committed in it, because
there they sacrificed their children to idols,
(<143306>2
Chronicles 33:6.) The consequence was, that holy men, in order to excite
stronger hatred of that wicked ungodliness, used it as the name for
hell,
that the very name might be dreaded by the people as shocking and alarming.
It would appear that, in the time of Christ, this was a received way of
speaking, and that
hell
was then called by no other name than gehenna,
(ge>enna,)
the word being slightly altered from the true
pronunciation.
MATTHEW 5:23-26; LUKE
12:58-59
|
MATTHEW
5:23-26
|
LUKE
12:58-59
|
|
23. Therefore, if thou shalt bring
thy gift to the altar, and there shalt remember that thy brother hath anything
against thee, 24. Leave there thy gift before the altar, and
go away: first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and
offer
f386
thy gift. 25. Be agreed with thy
adversary quickly, while thou art in the way with him: lest at any time the
adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer,
and thou be thrown into prison. 26. Verily I say to thee,
Thou shalt not depart thence, till thou shalt have paid the last
farthing.
|
58. Now, when thou goest with thy
adversary to the magistrate, do thy endeavor, while thou art in the way, to be
delivered from him: lest perhaps he drag thee to the judge, and the judge
deliver thee to the officer, and the officer throw thee into prison.
59. I say to thee, Thou shalt no depart thence, until thou
pay even the last mite.
|
Matthew 5:23.
Therefore, if thou shalt bring
thy gift. This clause confirms, and at
the same time explains, the preceding doctrine. It amounts to this, that the
precept of the law, which forbids murder,
(<022013>Exodus
20:13,) is obeyed, when we maintain agreement and brotherly kindness, with our
neighbor. To impress this more strongly upon us, Christ declares, that even the
duties of religion are displeasing to God, and are rejected by him, if we are at
variance with each other. When he commands those who have injured any of their
brethren, to be reconciled to
him, before they
offer their
gift, his meaning is, that, so long as a
difference with our neighbor is kept up by our fault, we have no access to God.
But if the worship, which men render to God, is polluted and corrupted by their
resentments, this enables us to conclude, in what estimation he holds mutual
agreement among ourselves.
Here a question may be put. Is it not absurd, that
the duties of charity should be esteemed more highly than the worship of God? We
shall then be forced to say, that the order of the law is improper, or that the
first table of the law must be preferred to the second. The answer is easy: for
the words of Christ mean nothing more than this, that it is a false and empty
profession of worshipping God, which is made by those who, after acting unjustly
towards their brethren, treat them with haughty disdain. By a
synecdoche
he takes a single class to express the outward exercises of divine worship,
which in many men are rather the pretenses, than the true expressions, of
godliness. It ought to be observed that Christ, adapting his discourse to that
age, speaks of sacrifices. Our condition is now different: but the doctrine
remains the same, that whatever we offer to God is polluted, unless, at least
as much as lieth in us,
(<451218>Romans
12:18,) we are at peace with our brethren. Alms are called in Scripture
sacrifices of a sweet smell,
(<500418>Philippians
4:18;) and we learn from the mouth of Paul, that he who
“spends all his
substance on the poor,
if he have
not charity, is nothing,”
(<461303>1
Corinthians 13:3.)
Lastly, God does not receive and acknowledge, as his
sons, any who do not, in their turn, show themselves to be brethren to each
other. Although it is only to those who have injured their brethren that these
words are addressed, enjoining them
to do their endeavor to be
reconciled to them, yet under one class
he points out, how highly the harmony of brethren is esteemed by God. When he
commands them to leave the gift before the altar, he expresses much more than if
he had said, that it is to no purpose for men to go to
the
temple, or
offer sacrifices to
God, so long as they live in discord
with their neighbors.
25. Be
agreed with thy
adversary. Christ appears to go farther,
and to exhort to reconciliation not only those who have injured their brethren,
but those also who are unjustly treated.
f387 But I interpret the words as having been
spoken with another view, to take away occasion for hatred and resentment, and
to point out the method of cherishing good-will. For whence come all injuries,
but from this, that each person is too tenacious of his own rights, that is,
each is too much disposed to consult his own convenience to the disadvantage of
others? Almost all are so blinded by a wicked love of themselves, that, even in
the worst causes, they flatter themselves that they are in the right. To meet
all hatred, enmity, debates, and acts of injustice, Christ reproves that
obstinacy, which is the source of these evils, and enjoins his own people to
cultivate moderation and justice, and to make some abatement from the highest
rigor, that, by such an act of justice, they may purchase for themselves peace
and friendship.
f388 It were to be wished, indeed, that no
controversy of any kind should ever arise among us; and undoubtedly men would
never break out into abuse or quarrelling, if they possessed a due share of
meekness. But, as it is scarcely possible but that differences will sometimes
happen, Christ points out the remedy, by which they may be immediately settled;
and that is, to put a restraint on our desires, and rather to act to our own
disadvantage, than follow up our rights with unflinching rigor. That Christ
frequently gave this exhortation is evident from the twelfth chapter of
Luke’s Gospel, where he does not relate the sermon on the mount, but gives
an abridgment of various passages in our Lord’s
discourses.
Lest the adversary deliver thee to
the judge. This part is explained by
some in a metaphorical sense, that the Heavenly Judge will act toward us with
the utmost rigor, so as to forgive us nothing, if we do not labor to settle
those differences which we have with our neighbors. But I view it more simply,
as an admonition that, even among men, it is usually advantageous for us to come
to an early agreement with adversaries, because, with quarrelsome persons, their
obstinacy often costs them dear. At the same time, I admit, that the comparison
is justly applied to God; for he will exercise judgment without mercy
(<590213>James
2:13) to him who is implacable to his brethren, or pursues his contentiousness
to the utmost. But it is highly ridiculous in the Papists, to construct their
purgatory out of a continued allegory on this passage. Nothing is more evident
than that the subject of Christ’s discourse is the cultivation of
friendship among men. They have no shame, or conscientious scruple, to pervert
his words, and to torture them into a widely different meaning, provided they
can impose on the unlearned. But as they do not deserve a lengthened refutation,
I shall only point out, in a single word, their shameful ignorance.
The
adversary is supposed by them to be the
devil. But Christ enjoins those who believe on him to
be agreed with the
adversary. Therefore, in order that the
Papists may find their purgatory here, they must first become the friends and
brethren of devils. A
farthing is well known to be the fourth
part of a penny: but here, as is evident from Luke, it denotes a
mite,
or any small piece of money. Now, if we were disposed to
cavilling,
f389 we might here obtain another exposure of
the absurdity of the Papists. For, if he who has once entered Purgatory will
never leave it, till he has paid
the last farthing, it follows, that the
suffrages (as they call them)of the living for the dead are of no avail. For
Christ makes no allowance, that others may free a debtor by satisfying for him,
but expressly demands from each person the payment of what he
owes. f390
Now, if Moses and other satisfactions are useless, however warm the fire of
Purgatory may be, yet the kitchens of priests and monks, for the sake of which
they are so anxious to maintain it, will be cool enough.
MATTHEW
5:27-30
|
MATTHEW
5:27-30
|
|
27. You have heard that it was
said to the ancients, Thou shalt not commit adultery. 28. But
I say to you, That whoever shall look upon a woman to lust after her, hath
already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29. And if
thy right eye shall be a stumbling block
f391 to
thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is better for thee that one of
thy members perish, and that thy whole body be not thrown into hell.
30. And if thy right hand shall be a hindrance to thee, cut
it off, and cast it from thee: for it is better that one of thy members perish,
and that thy whole body be not thrown into hell.
|
Matthew 5:27.
Thou shalt not commit
adultery. Christ proceeds with his
subject, and shows, that the law of God not only has authority over the life, in
a political view, to form the outward manners, but that it requires pure and
holy affections of the heart. We must remember what I have already stated, that
though Christ quotes the very words of the law, it is the gross and false
meaning, which had been put upon it by dishonest interpreters, that he blames.
He has already told us, that he did not come as a new Legislator, but as the
faithful expounder of a law which had been already given. It might be objected
that, through long practice, that interpretation had grown old. Christ expressly
admits this, but meets it by saying, that the antiquity of an error ought not to
be allowed to plead in its favor.
28.
Whoever shall look upon a
woman. The design of Christ was to
condemn generally the lust of the flesh. He says, that not only those who have
seduced their neighbors’ wives, but those who have polluted their eyes by
an immodest look, are adulterers before God. This is a
synec-doche:
f392 for not only the eyes, but even
the concealed flames of the heart, render men guilty of adultery. Accordingly,
Paul makes chastity
(<460734>1
Corinthians 7:34) to consist both in body and in mind. But Christ reckoned it
enough to refute the gross mistake which was prevalent: for they thought that it
was only necessary to guard against outward adultery. As it is generally by the
wantonness of the eyes that temptations are presented to the mind, and as lust
enters, as it were, by that door, Christ used this mode of speaking, when he
wished to condemn lust: which is evident from the expression,
to lust after
her. This teaches us also, that not only
those who form a deliberate purpose of fornication, but those who admit any
polluted thoughts, are reckoned adulterers before God. The hypocrisy of the
Papists, therefore, is too gross and stupid, when they affirm that lust is not a
sin, until it gain the full consent of the heart. But we need not wonder, that
they make sin to be so small a matter: for those who ascribe righteousness to
the merit of works must be very dull and stupid in judging of their
sins.
29.
If thy right eye shall be a
stumbling-block to thee. It might be
thought that, considering the weakness of the flesh and of nature, Christ
pressed too severely on men, and therefore he anticipates all such complaints.
The general meaning is, that however difficult, or severe, or troublesome, or
harsh, any commandment of God may be, yet no excuse ought to be pleaded on those
grounds, because the justice of God ought to stand higher in our estimation,
than all that we reckon most precious and valuable. “You have no right to
object to me, that you can scarcely turn your eyes in any direction, without
being suddenly drawn away by some temptation: for you ought rather to part with
your eyes, than to depart from the commandments of God.” And yet Christ
does not mean, that we must mutilate our body, in order to obey God: but as all
would readily wish, that they should not be restrained from the free use of
their senses, Christ employs an exaggerated
f393 form of speech to show, that whatever
hinders us from yielding that obedience to God which he requires in his law,
ought to be cut off. And he does so expressly, because men allow themselves too
much liberty in that respect. If the mind were pure, the eyes and hands would be
obedient to it; for it is certain, that they have no movement of their own. But
here we are deeply to blame. We are so far from being as careful as we ought to
be, to avoid allurements, that we rather provoke our senses to wickedness by
allowing them unbounded liberty.
MATTHEW 5:31-32; LUKE
16:18
|
MATTHEW
5:31-32
|
LUKE
16:18
|
|
31. Again, it hath been said,
Whoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of
divorcement.
f394
32. But I say to you, That
whosoever shall put away his wife, except on account of unchastity, causeth her
to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry a woman that is put away
committeth adultery.
|
18. Whosoever putteth away his
wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth a woman
put away from her husband committeth adultery.
|
Matthew 5:31.
Whosoever shall put away his
wife. As a more suitable occasion for
discussing and explaining this doctrine at greater length will afterwards occur,
(<401909>Matthew
19:9,) I shall now state briefly what Christ says in this passage. As the Jews
falsely imagined that they discharged their whole duty toward God, when they
kept the law in a national manner, so whatever the national law did not forbid,
they foolishly supposed to be lawful. Divorces, which husbands were wont to give
to their wives, had not been prohibited by Moses as to external order, but only,
for the sake of restraining lewdness, he had ordered that “a bill
of divorcement” should be given to the wives who were put away,
(<052401>Deuteronomy
24:1.) It was a sort of testimonial of freedom, so that the woman was afterwards
free from the yoke and power of the husband; while the husband at the same time
acknowledged, that he did not send her away on account of any crime, but because
she did not please him. Hence proceeded the error, that there was nothing wrong
in such putting away, provided that the forms of law were
observed. f395
But they did wrong in viewing as a matter of civil
law, the rule which had been given them for a devout and holy life. For national
laws are sometimes accommodated to the manners of men but God, in prescribing a
spiritual law, looked not at what men can do, but at what they ought to do. It
contains a perfect and entire righteousness, though we want ability to fulfill
it. Christ, therefore, admonishes us not to conclude, that what is allowed by
the national law of Moses is, on that account, lawful in the sight of God. That
man, (says he,) who puts away his wife, and gives her
a bill of
divorcement, shelters himself under the
pretense of the law: but the bond of marriage is too sacred to be dissolved at
the will, or rather at the licentious pleasure, of men. Though the husband and
the wife are united by mutual consent, yet God binds them by an indissoluble
tie, so that they are not afterwards at liberty to separate. An exception is
added, except on account of
fornication: for the woman, who has
basely violated the marriage-vow, is justly cast off; because it was by her
fault that the tie was broken, and the husband set at
liberty.
32.
Causeth her to commit
adultery. As the
bill of
divorcement bore, that the woman had
been loosed from her former husband, and might enter into a new marriage, the
man who, unjustly and unlawfully, abandons the wife whom God had given him, is
justly condemned for having prostituted his wife to others.
MATTHEW
5:33-37
|
MATTHEW
5:33-37
|
|
33. Again, ye have heard that it
was said to the ancients, Thou shalt not perjure thyself: but thou shalt perform
to the Lord what thou hast sworn. 34. But I charge you, swear
not at all: neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God:
35. Nor by the earth, for it is his footstool: nor by
Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King: 36. Nor
shalt thou swear by thy head: for thou canst not make one hair white or black.
37. But your speech shall be, Yes, yes; No, no for what is
beyond these comes from evil.
f396
|
33.
Thou shalt not perjure
thyself. This also is not a correction
of the law, but a true interpretation of it. For God condemned in the law not
only acts of perjury, but lightness in swearing, which lessens the reverence for
his name. The man who perjures
himself is not the only person who
takes the name of God in vain,
(<022007>Exodus
20:7.) He does so, who idly and contemptuously pronounces the name of God on
trivial occasions, or in ordinary conversation. While the law condemns every
kind of profanation of the name of God the Jews imagined, that the guilt of it
lay entirely in acts of perjury. Christ reproves this gross error of supposing
that they might, without danger, abuse the name of God, provided they did not
swear falsely. We are, no doubt, strictly enjoined to
perform to the Lord what we have
sworn: for he who, after employing the
name of God, cheats and deceives his neighbors, does an injury to God as well as
to man. But it is improper to confine to a single part that which has a wider
reference. Some consider the word
perform
as applying to vows, when any thing has been promised to God on account of
religion. But this mode of expression applies very well to all promises and
engagements, which have been sanctioned by the use of the name of God: for in
such cases God is appealed to as guarantee between the parties, to secure their
fidelity.
34.
Swear not at
all. Many have been led by the phrase,
not at
all, to adopt the false notion, that
every kind of swearing is condemned by Christ. Some good men have been driven to
this extreme rigor by observing the unbridled licentiousness of swearing, which
prevailed in the world. The Anabaptists, too, have blustered a great deal, on
the ground, that Christ appears to give no liberty to swear on any occasion,
because he commands, Swear not at
all. But we need not go beyond the
immediate context to obtain the exposition: for he immediately adds,
neither by heaven, nor by the
earth. Who does not see that those kinds
of swearing were added by way of exposition, to explain the former clause more
fully by specifying a number of cases? The Jews had circuitous or indirect ways
of swearing: and when they swore
by heaven, or by earth, or
by the
altar,
(<402318>Matthew
23:18,) they reckoned it to be next to nothing; and, as one vice springs from
another, they defended, under this pretense, any profanation of the name of God
that was not openly avowed.
To meet this crime, our Lord declares that they must
not swear at
all, either in this or that way, either
by
heaven, or
by the
earth. Hence we conclude, that the
particle, at
all, relates not to the substance, but
to the form, and means,
“neither
directly nor indirectly.” It would otherwise have been superfluous to
enumerate those kinds: and therefore the Anabaptists betray not only a rage for
controversy, but gross ignorance, when they obstinately press upon us a single
word, and pass over, with closed eyes, the whole scope of the passage. Is it
objected, that Christ permits no swearing? I reply: What the expounder of the
law says, must be viewed in connection with its design. His statement amounts to
this, that there are other ways of “taking the name of God in vain,”
besides perjury; and, therefore, that we ought to refrain from allowing
ourselves the liberty of unnecessary swearing: for, when there are just reasons
to demand it, the law not only permits, but expressly commands us to swear.
Christ, therefore, meant nothing more than this, that all oaths are unlawful,
which in any way abuse and profane the sacred name of God, for which they ought
to have had the effect of producing a deeper reverence.
Neither by
heaven. It is a mistake to explain these
words as meaning, that such forms of swearing are condemned by Christ as faulty,
on the ground that we ought to swear by God only. The reasons which he brings
forward tend rather to the opposite view, that we swear by the name of God even
when we name the
heaven,
and the
earth: because there is no part of the
world on which God has not engraved the marks of his glory. But this statement
appears not to agree with the precept of the law, in which God expressly
commands us to “swear by his name,”
(<050613>Deuteronomy
6:13;) and likewise with so many passages of Scripture, in which he complains,
that injury is done to him, if we swear by creatures. I reply: It is a
corruption allied to idolatry, when we appeal to them either as having a right
to judge, or authority to prove testimony: for we must look at the object of
swearing. It is an appeal which men make to God to revenge falsehood, and to
uphold truth. This honor cannot be transferred to another, without committing an
outrage on the divine majesty.
For the same reason the Apostle says, that we do not
swear in a right manner, unless we swear by
the
greater, and that it belongs to God
alone to swear by
himself,
(<580613>Hebrews
6:13.) Thus any one who, in ancient times, swore by “Moloch,”
(<031821>Leviticus
18:21,) or by any other idol, withdrew something of what belonged to God;
because they put that idol in the place of God, as possessing an acquaintance
with the hearts, and as the judge of the souls of men. And in our own times,
those who swear by angels, or by departed saints, take from God what belongs to
him, and ascribe to them a divine majesty. The case is different, when men
swear by heaven and
earth, with a view to the Creator
himself: for, in that case, the sanctity of the oath is not founded on
creatures, but God alone is appealed to as a witness, by bringing forward the
symbols of his glory.
Heaven
is called in Scripture
(<236601>Isaiah
66:1)the throne of
God: not that he dwells in heaven alone,
but to teach men to raise their minds upwards, whenever they think of him, and
not to form any low or earthly conceptions of him. Again,
the
earth is called
his
footstool, (v. 35,) to
inform us, that he fills all things, and that no extent of space can contain
him. The holiness of
Jerusalem
(v. 35) depended on his promise. It was
the holy
city,
(<235201>Isaiah
52:1:) because God had selected it to be the seat and residence of his empire.
When men swear by their
head, (v. 36,) they bring forward
their life, which is a remarkable gift of God, as a pledge of their
sincerity.
37.
But your speech shall be,
Yes, yes; No,
no.
Christ now prescribes, in the second place, a remedy; which is, that men act
towards each other sincerely and honestly: for then simplicity of speech will
have quite as much weight as an oath has among those who are not sincere. Now,
this is certainly the best way of correcting faults, to point out the sources
from which they spring. Whence comes the great propensity to swearing, but from
the great falsehood, the numerous impositions, the unsteady and light conduct,
so that hardly any thing is believed?
f397 Fairness and honesty in our words are,
therefore, demanded by Christ, that there may be no longer any occasion for an
oath.
“Yes,
yes; No, no.”
This
repetition means, that we ought to abide by our words, so that all may be
convinced of our honesty. Now, as this is the true and lawful method of
proceeding, when men have nothing on their tongue but what is in their heart,
Christ declares, that what is
beyond these comes from evil. I do not
approve of the exposition of these words which some have given, that the
criminality of swearing ought to be charged on the man who does not give credit
to what another says. Christ teaches us, in my opinion, that it originates in
the wickedness of men, that they are compelled to swear: for, if honesty
prevailed among men, if they were not inconsistent and hypocritical, they would
maintain that simplicity which nature dictates. And yet it does not follow, that
it is unlawful to swear, when necessity demands it: for many things are proper
in themselves, though they have had a wicked origin.
MATTHEW 5:38-41; LUKE
6:29-30
|
MATTHEW
5:38-41
|
LUKE
6:29-30
|
|
38. You have heard that it was
said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. 39. But I
say to you, Do not resist evil: but whoever, shall inflict a blow on thy right
cheek, turn to him the other also: 40. And to him who wishes
to enter into a law-suit with thee, and to take away thy coat, allow him thy
cloak also: 41. And whoever shall constrain thee to one mile,
go with him two.
|
29. To him who striketh thee on
one cheek offer also the other, and from him who taketh away thy cloak, do not
forbi thy coat also. 30. And to every one that asketh from
thee give; and from him who takes what are thine, do not ask them
again.
|
Matthew 5:38.
An eye for an eye.
Here another error is corrected. God had
enjoined, by his law,
(<032420>Leviticus
24:20,) that judges and magistrates should punish those who had done injuries,
by making them endure as much as they had inflicted. The consequence was, that
every one seized on this as a pretext for taking private revenge. They thought
that they did no wrong, provided they were not the first to make the attack, but
only, when injured, returned like for like. Christ informs them, on the
contrary, that, though judges were entrusted with the defense of the community,
and were invested with authority to restrain the wicked and repress their
violence, yet it is the duty of every man to bear patiently the injuries which
he receives.
39.
Do not resist
evil. There are two ways of resisting:
the one, by warding off injuries through inoffensive conduct; the other, by
retaliation.
f398 Though Christ does not permit his people
to repel violence by violence, yet he does not forbid them to endeavor to avoid
an unjust attack. The best interpreter of this passage that we can have is Paul,
who enjoins us rather to “overcome evil by good”
(<451221>Romans
12:21) than contend with evil-doers.
f399 We must attend to the contrast between
the vice and the correction of it. The present subject is
retaliation.
f400 To restrain his disciples from that kind
of indulgence, he forbids them to render evil for evil. He afterwards extends
the law of patience so far, that we are not only to bear patiently the injuries
we have received, but to prepare for bearing fresh injuries. The amount of the
whole admonition is, that believers should learn to forget the wrongs that have
been done them,—that they should not, when injured, break out into hatred
or ill-will, or wish to commit an injury on their part,—but that, the more
the obstinacy and rage of wicked men was excited and inflamed, they should be
the more fully disposed to exercise patience.
Whoever shall inflict a
blow.
Julian,
f401 and others of the same
description, have foolishly slandered this doctrine of Christ, as if it entirely
overturned the laws of a country, and its civil courts. Augustine, in his
fifth epistle, employs much skill and judgment in showing, that the design of
Christ was merely to train the minds of believers to moderation and justice,
that they might not, on receiving one or two offenses, fail or lose courage. The
observation of Augustine, “that this does not lay down a rule for outward
actions,” is true, if it be properly understood. I admit that Christ
restrains our hands, as well as our minds, from revenge: but when any one has it
in his power to protect himself and his property from injury, without exercising
revenge, the words of Christ do not prevent him from turning aside gently and
inoffensively to avoid the threatened attack.
Unquestionably, Christ did not intend to exhort his
people to whet the malice of those, whose propensity to injure others is
sufficiently strong: and if they were to
turn to them the other
cheek, what would it be but holding out
such an encouragement? It is not the business of a good and judicious
commentator to seize eagerly on syllables, but to attend to the design of the
speaker: and nothing is more unbecoming the disciples of Christ, than to spend
time in cavilling about words, where it is easy to see what the Master means.
But in the present instance, the object which Christ has in view is perfectly
obvious. He tells us, that the end of one contest will be the beginning of
another, and that, through the whole course of their life, believers must lay
their account with sustaining many injuries in uninterrupted succession. When
wrong has been done them in a single instance, he wishes them to be trained by
this example to meek submission, that by suffering they may learn to be
patient.
40.
And to him who wishes to
enter into a law-suit with thee. Christ
now glances at another kind of annoyance, and that is, when wicked men torment
us with law-suits. He commands us, even on such an occasion, to be so patient
and submissive that, when our
coat
has been taken
away, we shall be prepared to give up
our cloak
also. None but a fool will stand upon
the words, so as to maintain, that we must yield to our opponents what they
demand, before coming into a court of law: for such compliance would more
strongly inflame the minds of wicked men to robbery and extortion; and we know,
that nothing was farther from the design of Christ. What then is meant by
giving the c!oak to
him who endeavors, on the ground of a
legal claim,
f402
to take away our
coat? If a man, oppressed by an unjust
decision, loses what is his own, and yet is prepared, when it shall be found
necessary, to part with the remainder, he deserves not less to be commended for
patience than the man who allows himself to be twice robbed before coming into
court. In short, when Christians meet with one who endeavors to wrench from them
a part of their property, they ought to be prepared to lose the
whole.
Hence we conclude, that Christians are not entirely
prohibited from engaging in law-suits, provided they have a just defense to
offer. Though they do not surrender their goods as a prey, yet they do not
depart from this doctrine of Christ, which exhorts us to bear patiently
“the spoiling of our goods,”
(<581034>Hebrews
10:34.) It is, no doubt, rare to find a man who proceeds, with mild and proper
feelings, to plead in a court: but, as it is possible for a man to defend a just
cause with a view to the public advantage, we have no right to condemn the thing
in itself, because it appears to be directed by improper
feelings.
The different modes of expression which are employed
by Matthew and Luke, make no alteration in the meaning. A
cloak
is usually of more value than a
coat:
and accordingly, when Matthew says, that we ought
to give a cloak to him who takes
away a coat, he means that, after having
sustained a smaller loss, we ought to be prepared to endure a greater. What is
stated by Luke agrees with the ancient proverb, “The coat is nearer than
the cloak.”
f403
Luke 6:30.
To every one that asketh of
thee. The same words, as we shall
presently see, are found in Matthew: for it may readily be inferred from the
context, that Luke does not here speak of a request to obtain assistance, but of
actions at law, which bad men raise for the purpose of carrying off the property
of others. From him who takes
away what are thine, ask them not again.
If it is thought better to read the two clauses separately, I have no
objection: and then it will be an exhortation to liberality in giving. As to the
second clause, in which Christ forbids us to
ask
again those things which have been
unjustly taken away, it is undoubtedly an exposition of the former doctrine,
that we ought to bear patiently “the spoiling of our goods.”
But we must remember what I have already hinted, that we ought not to quibble
about words, as if a good man were not permitted to recover what is his own,
when God gives him the lawful means. We are only enjoined to exercise patience,
that we may not be unduly distressed by the loss of our property, but calmly
wait, till the Lord himself shall call the robbers to account.
MATTHEW 5:42; LUKE
6:34-35
|
MATTHEW
5:42
|
LUKE
6:34-35
|
|
42. Give to him that asketh of
thee: and from him who desires to borrow from thee, turn not thou
away.
|
34. If you shall lend to those
from whom you hope that you will receive, what kindness will it be in you? for
sinners also lend to sinners, that they may receive the like.
35. Lend ye, expecting nothing again, and your reward shall
be great.
|
Matthew 5:42.
Give to him that asketh of
thee. Though the words of Christ, which
are related by Matthew, appear to command us to give to all without
discrimination, yet we gather a different meaning from Luke, who explains
the whole matter more fully. First, it is certain, that it was the design of
Christ to make his disciples generous, but not prodigals and it would be a
foolish prodigality to scatter at random what the Lord has given us. Again, we
see the rule which the Spirit lays down in another passage for liberality. Let
us therefore hold, first, that Christ exhorts his disciples to be liberal and
generous; and next, that the way of doing it is, not to think that they have
discharged their duty when they have aided a few persons, but to study to be
kind to all, and not to be weary of giving, so long as they have the
means.
Besides, that no man may cavil at the words of
Matthew, let us compare what is said by Luke. Christ affirms that when, in
lending or doing other kind offices, we look to the mutual reward, we perform no
part of our duty to God. He thus draws a distinction between charity and carnal
friendship. Ungodly men have no disinterested affection for each other, but only
a mercenary regard: and thus, as Plato judiciously observes, every man draws on
himself that affection which he entertains for others. But Christ demands from
his own people disinterested beneficence, and bids them study to aid the poor,
from whom nothing can be expected in return. We now see what it is, to have an
open hand to petitioners. It is to be generously disposed to all who need qur
assistance, and who cannot return the
favor.
Luke 6:35.
Lend, expecting nothing
again. It is a mistake to confine this
statement to usury, as if Christ only forbade his people to be usurers. The
preceding part of the discourse shows clearly, that it has a wider reference.
After having explained what wicked men are wont to do,—to love their
friends,—to assist those from whom they expect some
compensations,—to lend to persons like themselves, that they may
afterwards receive the like from them,—Christ proceeds to show how much
more he demands from his people,—to love their enemies, to show
disinterested kindness, to lend without expecting a return. We now see, that the
word
nothing
is improperly explained as referring to usury, or to any interest that is
added to the principal:
f404 whereas Christ only exhorts us to
perform our duties freely, and tells us that mercenary acts are of no account in
the sight of God.
f405 Not that he absolutely condemns all acts
of kindness which are done in the hope of a reward; but he shows that they are
of no weight as a testimony of charity; because he alone is truly beneficent to
his neighbors, who is led to assist them without any regard to his own
advantage, but looks only to the necessities of each. Whether it is ever lawful
for Christians to derive profit from lending money, I shall not argue at greater
length under this passage, lest I should seem to raise the question unseasonably
out of a false meaning which I have now refuted. Christ’s meaning, as I
have already explained, is simply this: When believers lend, they ought to go
beyond heathens; or, in other words, they ought to exercise pure
liberality.
MATTHEW 5:43-48; LUKE
6:27-36
|
MATTHEW
5:43-48
|
LUKE
6:27-36
|
|
43. Ye have heard that it hath
been said, Thou shalt love they neighbor, and thou shalt hate thy enemy.
44. But I say to you, Love your enemies: bless those who
curse you: do good to those that hate you: and pray for those who injure and
persecute you: 45. That you may be the children of your
Father who is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and the good,
and sendeth rain upon the just and unjust. 46. For if you
shall love those who love you, what reward shall you have?
47. And if you shall embrace your brethren only, what do you
more? Do not the publicans thus? 48. You shall, therefore, be
perfect, as your Father who is in heaven is perfect.
|
27. But I say to you who hear,
Love your enemies: do good to those who hate you. 28. Bless
those who curse you, and pray for those who injure you. (A little after.)
32. And if you love those who love you, what good-will shall
it be in you? for sinners also love those by whom they are loved.
33. And if you shall do good to those who do good to you,
what good-will shall it be in you? for sinners also do this. (Again a little
after.) 35. But love your enemies. (Again.) And ye shall be
the children of the Highest: for he is kind to the unthankful and evil.
36. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is
merciful.
|
Matthew 5:43.
Thou shalt love thy
neighbor. It is astonishing, that the
Scribes fell into so great an absurdity, as to limit the word
neighbor
to benevolent persons: for nothing is more obvious or certain than that God,
in speaking of our neighbors, includes the whole human race. Every man is
devoted to himself; and whenever a regard to personal convenience occasions an
interruption of acts of kindness, there is a departure from that mutual
intercourse, which nature itself dictates. To keep up the exercise of brotherly
love, God assures us, that all men are our brethren, because they are related to
us by a common nature. Whenever I see a man, I must, of necessity, behold myself
as in a mirror: for he is my bone and my flesh,
(<012914>Genesis
29:14.) Now, though the greater part of men break off, in most instances, from
this holy society, yet their depravity does not violate the order of nature; for
we ought to regard God as the author of the union.
Hence we conclude, that the precept of the law, by
which we are commanded to love our neighbor, is general. But the Scribes,
judging of
neighborhood
from the disposition of the individual, affirmed that no man ought to be
reckoned a
neighbor,
unless he were worthy of esteem on account of his own excellencies, or, at
least, unless he acted the part of a friend. This is, no doubt, supported by the
common opinion; and therefore the children of the world are not ashamed to
acknowledge their resentments, when they have any reason to assign for them. But
the charity, which God requires in his law, looks not at what a man has
deserved, but extends itself to the unworthy, the wicked, and the ungrateful.
Now, this is the true meaning which Christ restores, and vindicates from
calumny; and hence it is obvious, as I have already said, that Christ does not
introduce new laws, but corrects the wicked glosses of the Scribes, by whom the
purity of the divine law had been
corrupted.
44.
Love your
enemies. This single point includes the
whole of the former doctrine: for he who shall bring his mind to love those who
hate him, will naturally refrain from all revenge, will patiently endure evils,
will be much more prone to assist the wretched. Christ presents to us, in a
summary view, the way and manner of fulfilling this precept,
Thou shalt love thy neighbor as
thyself,
(<402239>Matthew
22:39.) For no man will ever come to obey this precept, till he shall
have given up self-love, or rather denied himself, and till men, all of whom God
has declared to be connected with him, shall be held by him in such estimation,
that he shall even proceed to love those by whom he is regarded with
hatred.
We learn from these words, how far believers ought to
be removed from every kind of revenge: for they are not only forbidden to ask it
from God, but are commanded to banish and efface it from their minds so
completely, as to bless their
enemies. In the meantime, they do not
fail to commit their cause to God, till he take vengeance on the reprobate: for
they desire, as far as lies in them, that the wicked should return to a sound
mind, that they may not perish; and thus they endeavor to promote their
salvation. And there is still this consolation, by which all their distresses
are soothed. They entertain no doubt, that God will be the avenger of obstinate
wickedness, so as to make it manifest, that those who are unjustly attacked are
the objects of his care. It is very difficult, indeed, and altogether contrary
to the disposition of the flesh, to render good for evil. But our vices and
weakness ought not to be pleaded as an apology. We ought simply to inquire, what
is demanded by the law of charity: for, if we rely on the heavenly power of the
Spirit, we shall encounter successfully all that is opposed to it in our
feelings.
This is undoubtedly the reason why monks, and other
bawlers of the same class, imagined that these were
advices,
and not precepts, given by Christ: for they took the strength of men as the
standard, for ascertaining what they owe to God and to his law. And yet the
monks were not ashamed to claim perfection for themselves, having voluntarily
bound themselves to attend to his advices. How faithfully they support the title
to which they lay claim I do not now say:
f406 but the folly and absurdity of alleging,
that they are only advices, will appear from many considerations. First, to say
that he
advised
his disciples, but did not authoritatively command them, to do what was
right, is to dishonor Christ. Secondly, to represent the duties of charity,
which depend on the law, as matters on which they are left at liberty, is highly
foolish.
f407 Thirdly, the words
ejgw< de< le>gw
uJmi~n,
but I say to
you, mean in this passage, “I
denounce,” or “I command,” and cannot, with propriety, be
rendered,
“I
advise.” Lastly, that it is an express command of what must
necessarily be obeyed, is proved, without any difficulty, from the words of
Christ: for he immediately adds,
45.
That ye may be the children
of your Father who is in heaven. When he
expressly declares, that no man will be a child of God, unless he
loves those who hate
him, who shall dare to say, that we are
not bound to observe this doctrine? The statement amounts to this,
“Whoever shall wish to be accounted a Christian, let him
love his
enemies.” It is truly horrible and
monstrous, that the world should have been covered with such thick darkness, for
three or four centuries, as not to see that it is an express command, and that
every one who neglects it is struck out of the number of the children of
God.
It ought to be observed that, when the example of God
is held out for our imitation, this does not imply, that it would be becoming in
us to do whatever God does. He frequently punishes the wicked, and drives the
wicked out of the world. In this respect, he does not desire us to imitate him:
for the judgment of the world, which is his prerogative, does not belong to us.
But it is his will, that we should imitate his fatherly goodness and liberality.
This was perceived, not only by heathen philosophers, but by some wicked
despisers of godliness, who have made this open confession, that in nothing do
men resemble God more than in doing good. In short, Christ assures us, that this
will be a mark of our adoption, if we are
kind to the unthankful and
evil. And yet you are not to understand,
that our liberality makes us the children of God: but the same Spirit, who is
the witness,
(<450816>Romans
8:16,) earnest,
(<490114>Ephesians
1:14,) and seal,
(<490430>Ephesians
4:30,) of our free adoption, corrects the wicked affections of the flesh, which
are opposed to charity. Christ therefore proves from the effect, that none are
the children of God, but those who resemble him in gentleness and
kindness.
Luke says,
and you shall be the children of
the Highest. Not that any man acquires
this honor for himself, or begins to be a
child of
God, when he
loves his
enemies; but because, when it is
intended to excite us to do what is right, Scripture frequently employs this
manner of speaking, and represents as a reward the free gifts of God. The reason
is, he looks at the design of our calling, which is, that, in consequence of the
likeness of God having been formed anew in us, we may live a devout and holy
life. He maketh his sun to rise
on the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the
unjust. He quotes two instances of the
divine kindness toward us, which are not only well known to us, but common to
all: and this very participation excites us the more powerfully to act in a
similar manner towards each other, though, by a
synecdoche,
f408 he includes a vast number of
other favors.
46.
Do not even the publicans the
same? In the same sense, Luke calls them
sinners,
that is, wicked and unprincipled men. Not that the office is condemned in
itself; for the
publicans
were collectors of taxes, and as princes have a right to impose taxes, so it
is lawful to levy them from the people. But they are so called, because men of
this class are usually covetous and rapacious, nay, deceitful and cruel; and
because among the Jews they were the agents of a wicked tyranny. If any one
shall conclude from the words of Christ, that
publicans
are the basest of all men, he will argue ill: for our Lord employs the
ordinary phraseology. His meaning is :those who are nearly devoid of humanity
have some appearance of discharging mutual duties, when they see it to be for
their own advantage.
48.
You shall therefore be
perfect. This
perfection
does not mean
equality,
but relates solely to resemblance.
f409 However distant we are from the
perfection of God, we are said to be
perfect, as he is
perfect, when we aim at the same object,
which he presents to us in Himself. Should it be thought preferable, we may
state it thus. There is no comparison here made between God and us: but the
perfection
of God means,
first,
that free and pure kindness, which is not induced by the expectation of
gain;—and,
secondly,
that remarkable goodness, which contends with the malice and ingratitude of
men. This appears more clearly from the words of Luke,
Be ye therefore merciful, as your
Father also is merciful: for
mercy
is contrasted with a mercenary regard, which is founded on private
advantage.
MATTHEW 6:
1-4
|
MATTHEW
6:1-4
|
|
1. Beware lest ye do your alms
before men, that you may be seen by them: otherwise you have not a reward with
your Father who is in heaven. 2. Therefore, when thou doest
alms, let there not be a sound of trumpets before thee, as hypocrites do in
synagogues and in streets, that they may be glorified by men. Verily I say to
you, They have their reward. 3. But when thou shalt do alms,
let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: 4. That
thy alms may be in secret, and thy Father, who seeth in secret, will reward thee
openly.
|
1.
Beware.
In this passage, Christ exhorts his people to devote themselves sincerely to
good works; that is, to endeavor, with simplicity, to do what is right before
God, and not to make a parade before men.
f410 A very necessary admonition; for in all
virtues the entrance of ambition is to be dreaded, and there is no work so
laudable, as not to be in many instances corrupted and polluted by it. Under one
class he lays down, by a synecdoche, a general doctrine: for he speaks of
alms
only, as he speaks shortly afterwards about
prayers:
though some copies, instead of
ejlehmosu>nhn,
alms,
read
dikaiosu>nhn,
righteousness,
which is also the rendering of the old translator. But the difference is of
little moment: for in either way there is no room to doubt, that the design is,
to correct the disease of ambition, when, in doing what is right, we seek glory
from men.
2.
When thou doest
alms. He expressly reproves a long
established custom, in which the desire of fame might not only be perceived by
the eye, but felt by the hands. In places where streets or roads met, and in
public situations, where large assemblies were wont to be held, they distributed
alms to the poor. There was evident ostentation in that practice: for they
sought crowded places, that they might be seen by multitudes, and, not satisfied
with this, added even the sound of trumpets.
f411 They pretended, no doubt, that it was to
call the poor, as apologies are never wanting: but it was perfectly obvious,
that they were hunting for applause and commendation. Now, when our service is
rendered to the eyes of men, we do not submit our life to the judgment and
approbation of God. Justly, therefore, does Christ say, that those persons, who
exhibit themselves in this manner,
have their
reward: for they whose eyes are held by
such vanity cannot look upon God.
For the same reason, all who are desirous of
vain-glory are called
hypocrites.
Profane authors gave the name of
uJpokritai<,
hypocrites,
to those who personated assumed characters in plays and on the stage; and
Scripture has applied this term to men who are double in heart and
insincere.
f412 There are various kinds of
hypocrites.
Some, though conscious of being very wicked, impudently give themselves out
for good men before the world, and endeavor to conceal their vices, of which
they have an inward conviction. Others allow themselves to proceed to such a
pitch of audacity, that they venture to claim even perfect righteousness before
God. Others do good, not from a desire to do what is right, nor on account of
the glory of God, but only to obtain for themselves fame and a reputation for
holiness. This last mentioned class Christ now describes, and he properly calls
them
hypocrites:
for, having no proper object in view in the performance of good works, they
assume a different character, that they may appear to be holy and sincere
worshippers of God.
3.
Let not thy left hand
know. By this expression he means, that
we ought to be satisfied with having God for our only witness, and to be so
earnestly desirous to obey him, that we shall not be carried away by any vanity.
It frequently happens, that men sacrifice to themselves rather than to God.
Christ therefore wishes, that we should not be distracted by indirect thoughts,
but go straight to this object, that we may serve God with a pure
conscience.
4.
That
thy
alms may be in
secret. This statement appears to be
opposed to many passages of Scripture, in which we are commanded to edify the
brethren by good examples. But if we attend to the design of Christ, we must not
give a more extensive meaning to the words.
f413 He commands his disciples to devote
themselves to good works purely, and without any ambition. In order to do this,
he bids them turn away their eyes from the sight of men, and to reckon it enough
that their duties are approved by God alone. Such simplicity of views does not
at all interfere with anxiety and zeal to promote edification: and, indeed, a
little before, he did not expressly forbid them to do good before men, but
condemned ostentation.
Thy Father, who seeth in
secret. He silently glances at a kind of
folly, which prevails everywhere among men, that they think they have lost their
pains, if there have not been many spectators of their virtues. He tells them,
that God does not need a strong light to perceive good actions: for those
things, which appear to be buried in darkness, are open to his view. We have no
reason, therefore, to suppose that what escapes the notice, and receives not the
testimony of men, is lost: for “the Lord dwells in the thick
darkness,”
(<140601>2
Chronicles 6:1.) A most appropriate remedy is thus applied for curing the
disease of ambition, when he reminds us to fix our
eye
on God: for this banishes from our minds, and will utterly destroy, all
vain-glory.—In the second clause, which immediately follows, Christ
reminds us that, in looking for the reward of good works, we must wait patiently
till the last day, the day of resurrection.
Thy
Father, says he,
shall reward thee
openly. But when? It will be, when the
dawn of the last day shall arise, by which all that is now hidden in darkness
shall be revealed.
MATTHEW 6:5-8
|
MATTHEW
6:5-8
|
|
5. And when thou shalt pray, thou
shalt not be as the hypocrites: for they are wont to pray standing in the
synagogues, and in corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Verily
I say to you, that they have their reward. 6. But thou, when
thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and, having shut thy door, pray to thy
Father who is in secret: and thyFather, who seeth secret, shall reward thee
openly. 7. But praying, use not vain repetitions, as
the Heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard on account of their
speaking much. 8. Be not you, therefore, like them: for your
Father knoweth what things ye need, before ye ask him.
|
5.
When thou shalt
pray. He now gives the same instruction
as to
prayer,
which he had formerly given as to
alms.
It is a gross and shameful profanation of the name of God, when hypocritcs,
in order to obtain glory from men, pray in public, or at least make a pretense
of praying. But, as hypocrisy is always ambitious, we need not wonder that it is
also blind. Christ, therefore, commands his disciples, if they wish to pray in a
right manner, to enter into their
closet. Some expositors, thinking that
this has the appearance of absurdity, give it an allegorical turn, as referring
to the inward recesses of the heart: but there is no necessity for such
trifling. We are commanded, in many passages, to pray to God or to praise him,
in the public assembly, amidst a crowd of men, and before all the people: and
that for the purpose, not only of testifying our faith or gratitude, but also of
exciting others, by our example, to do the like. Christ does not withdraw us
from such an exercise, but only admonishes us to have God always before our eyes
when we engage in prayer.
We must not literally interpret the words,
enter into thy
closet: as if he ordered us to avoid the
presence of men, or declared that we do not pray aright, except when there are
no witnesses. He speaks comparatively, and means, that we ought rather to seek
retirement than desire a crowd of men to see us
praying.
f414 It is advantageous, indeed, to
believers, and contributes to their pouring out, with greater freedom, their
prayers and groans before God, to withdraw from the gaze of men. Retirement is
also useful for another reason, that our minds may be more free and disengaged
from all distracting thoughts: and accordingly Christ himself frequently chose
the concealment of some retired spot for the sake of prayer. But this is not the
present subject, which is only to correct the desire of vain-glory. To express
it in a few words, whether a man prays alone, or in the presence of others, he
ought to have the same feelings, as if he were shut up in his closet, and had no
other witness but God. When Christ says,
thy Father shall reward
thee, he declares plainly that all the
reward, which is promised to us in any part of Scripture, is not paid as a debt,
but is a free gift.
7.
Use not vain
repetitions. He reproves another fault
in prayer, a multiplicity of words. There are two words used, but in the same
sense: for
battologi>a
is “a superfluous and affected repetition,” and
polulogi>a
is “unmeaning talk.” Christ reproves the folly of those who, with
the view of persuading and entreating God, pour out a superfluity of words. This
doctrine is not inconsistent with the praises everywhere bestowed in Scripture
on earnestness in prayer: for, when prayer is offered with earnest feeling, the
tongue does not go before the heart. Besides, the grace of God is not obtained
by an unmeaning flow of words; but, on the contrary, a devout heart throws out
its affections, like arrows, to pierce heaven. At the same time, this condemns
the superstition of those who entertain the belief, that they will secure the
favor of God by long murmurings. We find Popery to be so deeply imbued with this
error, that it believes the efficacy of prayer to lie chiefly in talkativeness.
The greater number of words that a man mutters, the more diligently he is
supposed to have prayed. Long and tedious chanting also, as if it were to soothe
the ears of God, continually resounds in their
cathedrals.
8.
For your Father
knoweth. This single remedy is
sufficient for removing and destroying the superstition which is here condemned.
For whence comes this folly of thinking that great advantage is gained, when men
weary God by a multiplicity of words, but because they imagine that he is like a
mortal man, who needs to be informed and solicited? Whoever is convinced, that
God not only cares for us, but knows all our wants, and anticipates our wishes
and anxieties before we have stated them, will leave out vain repetitions, and
will reckon it enough to prolong his prayers, as far as shall be necessary for
exercising his faith; but will reckon it absurd and ridiculous to approach God
with rhetorical embellishments, in the expectation that he will be moved by an
abundance of words.
But if God
knows what things we have need
of, before we ask him, where lies the
advantage of prayer? If he is ready, of his own free will, to assist us, what
purpose does it serve to employ our prayers, which interrupt the spontaneous
course of his providence? The very design of prayer furnishes an easy answer.
Believers do not pray, with the view of informing God about things unknown to
him, or of exciting him to do his duty, or of urging him as though he were
reluctant. On the contrary, they pray, in order that they may arouse themselves
to seek him, that they may exercise their faith in meditating on his promises,
that they may relieve themselves from their anxieties by pouring them into his
bosom; in a word, that they may declare that from Him alone they hope and
expect, both for themselves and for others, all good things. God himself, on the
other hand, has purposed freely, and without being asked, to bestow blessings
upon us; but he promises that he will grant them to our prayers. We must,
therefore, maintain both of these truths, that He freely anticipates our wishes,
and yet that we obtain by prayer what we ask. As to the reason why he sometimes
delays long to answer us, and sometimes even does not grant our wishes, an
opportunity of considering it will afterwards occur.
MATTHEW 6:9-12; LUKE
11:1-4
|
MATTHEW
6:9-13
|
LUKE
11:1-4
|
|
9. Pray ye therefore thus: Our
Father who art in heaven, may thy name be sanctified. 10. May
thy kingdom come. May thy will be done, as in heaven, so also in the earth.
11. Give us to-day our daily bread.
12. And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.
13. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from
evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory for ever.
Amen.
|
1. And it happened, while he was
praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said to him,
Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.
2. And he saith to them, When you pray, say, Our Father who
art in heaven, may thy name be sanctified. May thy kingdom come. May thy will be
done, as in heaven, so also in the earth. 3. Give us to.day
our daily bread. 4. And forgive us our sins, as we also
forgive every one who owes us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us
from evil.
|
It is uncertain whether this form was once only
or twice delivered by Christ to his disciples.
f415 Some think that the latter is more
probable; because Luke says that he was requested to do it, while Matthew
represents him as teaching it of his own accord. But as we have said, that
Matthew collects all the leading points of doctrine, in order that the whole
amount of them may be more clearly perceived by the readers when they are placed
in close succession, it is possible that Matthew may have omitted to mention the
occasion which is related by Luke. On this subject, however, I am unwilling to
debate with any person.
Luke 11:1.
As John also taught his
diciples. John delivered to his
disciples a particular form of prayer; and he did so, in my opinion, because the
time required it. The state of affairs among the Jews was, at that time,
exceedingly corrupted. Every thing connected with religion had so miserably
fallen, that we need not be surprised to find few among them, by whom prayer was
offered in a proper manner.
f416 Besides, it was proper, that the minds
of believers should be excited, by prayer, to hope and desire the promised
redemption, which was at hand. John might, therefore, have collected, out of
various passages of Scripture, a certain prayer adapted to the time, and
approaching more nearly to the spiritual kingdom of Christ, which had already
begun to be revealed.
Matthew 6:9
Do ye therefore pray
thus. Instead of this Luke says,
when ye pray,
say: though Christ does not enjoin his
people to pray in a prepared form of words,
f417 but only points out what ought to be the
object of all our wishes and prayers. He embraces, therefore, in six petitions
what we are at liberty to ask from God. Nothing is more advantageous to us than
such instruction. Though this is the most important exercise of piety, yet in
forming our prayers, and regulating our wishes, all our senses fail us. No man
will pray aright, unless his lips and heart shall be directed by the Heavenly
Master. For that purpose he has laid down this rule, by which we must frame our
prayers, if we desire to have them accounted lawful and approved by God. It was
not the intention of the Son of God, (as we have already said), to prescribe the
words which we must use, so as not to leave us at liberty to depart from the
form which he has dictated. His intention rather was, to guide and restrain our
wishes, that they might not go beyond those limits and hence we infer, that the
rule which he has given us for praying aright relates not to the words, but to
the things themselves.
This form of prayer consists, as I have said, of six
petitions. The first three, it ought to be known, relate to the glory of God,
without any regard to ourselves; and the remaining three relate to those things
which are necessary for our salvation. As the law of God is divided into two
tables, of which the former contains the duties of piety, and the latter the
duties of charity,
f418 so in prayer Christ enjoins us to
consider and seek the glory of God, and, at the same time, permits us to consult
our own interests. Let us therefore know, that we shall be in a state of mind
for praying in a right manner, if we not only are in earnest about ourselves and
our own advantage, but assign the first place to the glory of God: for it would
be altogether preposterous to mind only what belongs to ourselves, and to
disregard the kingdom of God, which is of far greater
importance.
Our Father who art in
heaven. Whenever we engage in prayer,
there are two things to be considered, both that we may have access to God, and
that we may rely on Him with full and unshaken confidence: his fatherly love
toward us, and his boundless power. Let us therefore entertain no doubt, that
God is willing to receive us graciously, that he is ready to listen to our
prayers,—in a word, that of Himself he is disposed to aid us.
Father
is the appellation given to him; and under this title Christ supplies us
with sufficiently copious materials for confidence. But as it is only the half
of our reliance that is founded on the goodness of God, in the next clause,
who art in
heaven, he gives us a lofty idea of the
power of God. When the Scripture says, that God is
in
heaven, the meaning is, that all things
are subject to his dominions,—that the world, and everything in it, is
held by his hand,—that his power is everywhere diffused,—that all
things are arranged by his providence. David says, “He that dwelleth in
the heavens shall laugh at them,”
(<190204>Psalm
2:4); and again, “Our God is in heaven: he hath done whatever he hath
pleased,”
(<19B503>Psalm
115:3).
When God is said to be
in
heaven, we must not suppose that he
dwells only there; but, on the contrary, must hold what is said in another
passage, that “the heavens of heavens do not contain him,”
(<140206>2
Chronicles 2:6). This mode of expression separates him from the rank of
creatures, and reminds us that, when we think of him, we ought not to form any
low or earthly conceptions: for he is higher than the whole world. We have now
ascertained the design of Christ. In the commencement of the prayer, he desired
his own people to rest their confidence on the goodness and power of God;
because, unless our prayers are founded on faith, they will be of no advantage.
Now, as it would be the folly and madness of presumption, to call God our
Father, except on the ground that, through our union to the body of
Christ, we are acknowledged as his children, we conclude, that there is no other
way of praying aright, but by approaching God with reliance on the
Mediator.
May thy name be
sanctified. This makes still more
manifest what I have said, that in the first three petitions we ought to lose
sight of ourselves, and seek the glory of God: not that it is separated from our
salvation, but that the majesty of God ought to be greatly preferred by us to
every other object of solicitude. It is of unspeakable advantage to us that God
reigns, and that he receives the honor which is due to him: but no man has a
sufficiently earnest desire to promote the glory of God, unless (so to speak) he
forgets himself, and raises his mind to seek God’s exalted greatness.
There is a close connection and resemblance between those three petitions.
The sanctification of the name of
God is always connected with his
kingdom;
and the most important part of his
kingdom
lies in his will being
done. Whoever considers how cold and
negligent we are in desiring the greatest of those blessings for which we are
here commanded to pray, will acknowledge that nothing here is superfluous, but
that it is proper that the three petitions should be thus
distinguished.
To
sanctify the name of
God means nothing else, than to
give unto the Lord the glory due
unto his name, so that men may never
think or speak of him but with the deepest veneration. The opposite of this is
the profanation of the name of God, which takes place, when men either
speak disrespectfully of the divine majesty, or at least without that reverence
which they ought to feel. Now, the glory, by which it is
sanctified,
flows and results from the acknowledgments made by men as to the wisdom,
goodness, righteousness, power, and all the other attributes of God. For
holiness always dwells, and permanently remains, in God: but men obscure it by
their malice and depravity, or dishonor and pollute it by sacrilegious contempt.
The substance of this petition is, that the glory of God may shine in the world,
and may be duly acknowledged by men. But religion is in its highest purity and
rigour, when men believe, that whatever proceeds from God is right and proper,
full of righteousness and wisdom: for the consequence is, that they embrace his
word with the obedience of faith, and approve of all his ordinances and works.
That faith which we yield to the word of God is, so to speak, our
subscription,
f419 by which we “set to
our seal that God is faithful,”
(<430333>John
3:33;) as the highest dishonor that can be done to him is unbelief and contempt
of his word.
We now see, what wickedness is displayed by most men
in judging of the works of God, and how freely they allow themselves to indulge
in censure. If any of us are chastised, they grumble, and murmur, and complain,
and some break out into open blasphemies: if he does not grant our wishes, we
think that he is not sufficiently kind to us.
f420 Many turn into matter of idle talk and
jesting his incomprehensible providence and secret judgments. Even his holy and
sacred name is often treated with the grossest mockery. In short, a part of the
world profane his holiness to the utmost of their power. We need not then
wonder, if we are commanded to ask, in the first place, that the reverence which
is due to it may be given by the world. Besides, this is no small honor done to
us, when God recommends to us the advancement of his
glory.
10.
May thy kingdom
come. Though the Greek verb
(ejlqe>tw)
is simple, yet if, instead of May
thy kingdom come, we read, as it was
rendered in the old translation,
May thy kingdom
arrive,
f421 the meaning will remain
unchanged. We must first attend to the definition of the
kingdom
of God. He is said to
reign
among men, when they voluntarily devote and submit themselves to be governed
by him, placing their flesh under the yoke, and renouncing their desires. Such
is the corruption of the nature, that all our affections are so many soldiers of
Satan, who oppose the justice of God, and consequently obstruct or disturb his
reign.
By this prayer we ask, that he may remove all hindrances, and may bring all
men under his dominion, and may lead them to meditate on the heavenly
life.
This is done partly by the preaching of the word, and
partly by the secret power of the Spirit. It is his will to govern men by his
word: but as the bare voice, if the inward power of the Spirit be not added,
does not pierce the hearts of men, both must be joined together, in order that
the
kingdom
of God may be established. We therefore pray that God would exert his power,
both by the Word and by the Spirit, that the whole world may willingly submit to
him. The
kingdom
of God is opposed to all disorder
(ajtaxi>a)
and confusion for good order is nowhere found in the world, except when he
regulates by his hand the schemes and dispositions of men. Hence we conclude,
that the commencement of the
reign
of God in us is the destruction of the old man, and the denial of ourselves,
that we may be renewed to another life.
There is still another way in which God reigns; and
that is, when he overthrows his enemies, and compels them, with Satan their
head, to yield a reluctant subjection to his authority, “till they all be
made his footstools”
(<581013>Hebrews
10:13.) The substance of this prayer is, that God would enlighten the world by
the light of his Word, — would form the hearts of men, by the influences
of his Spirit, to obey his justice, and would restore to order, by the gracious
exercise of his power, all the disorder that exists in the world. Now, he
commences his reign by subduing the desires of our flesh. Again, as the
kingdom
of God is continually growing and advancing to the end of the world, we must
pray every day that it may
come: for to whatever extent iniquity
abounds in the world, to such an extent
the kingdom of
God, which brings along with it perfect
righteousness, is not yet
come.
May thy will be
done. Although the
will
of God, viewed in itself, is one and simple, it is presented to us in
Scripture under a twofold aspect
f422 . It is said, that the will of God is
done, when he executes the secret counsels of his providence, however
obstinately men may strive to oppose him. But here we are commanded to pray
that, in another sense, his will
may be done,—that all creatures
may obey him, without opposition, and without reluctance. This appears more
clearly from the comparison, as
in heaven. For, as He has the angels
constantly ready to execute his commands, (and hence they are said to do his
commandments, hearkening to the voice of his word,
<19A320>Psalm
103:20,) so we desire that all men may have their will formed to such harmony
with the righteousness of God, that they may freely bend in whatever direction
he shall appoint. It is, no doubt, a holy desire, when we bow to the
will
of God, and acquiesce in his appointments. But this prayer implies something
more. It is a prayer, that God may remove all the obstinacy of men, which rises
in unceasing rebellion against him, and may render them gentle and submissive,
that they may not wish or desire any thing but what pleases him, and meets his
approbation.
But it may be objected: Ought we to ask from God
what, he declares, will never exist to the end of the world? I reply: When we
pray that the earth may become obedient to the will of God, it is not necessary
that we should look particularly at every individual. It is enough for us to
declare, by such a prayer as this, that we hate and regret whatever we perceive
to be contrary to the will of God, and long for its utter destruction, not only
that it may be the rule of all our affections, but that we may yield ourselves
without reserve, and with all cheerfulness, to its
fulfillment.
11.
Give us today our daily
bread. Of the form of prayer which
Christ has prescribed to us this may be called, as I have said, the Second
Table. I have adopted this mode of dividing it for the sake of
instruction.
f423 The precepts which relate to the proper
manner of worshipping God are contained in the First Table of the law, and those
which relate to the duties of charity in the Second. Again, in this
prayer,—”I have formerly divided it thus, in order to instruct more
familiarly.” our Lord first instructs us to seek the glory of God, and
then points out, in the second part, what we ought to ask for ourselves. But it
must be observed, that the prayers which we offer for our salvation, or for our
own advantage, ought to have this for their ultimate object: for we must not be
so exclusively occupied with what is advantageous to ourselves, as to omit, in
any instance, to give the first place to the glory of God. When we pray,
therefore, we must never turn away our eyes from that object.
There is this difference, however, between the two
kinds of petitions which we have mentioned. When we pray for
the kingdom of
God and the
sanctification of his
name, our eyes ought to be directed
upwards, so as to lose sight of ourselves, and to be fixed on God alone. We then
come down to ourselves, and connect with those former petitions, which look to
God alone, solicitude about our own salvation. Though the
forgiveness of
sins is to be preferred to
food, f424
as far as the soul is more valuable than the body, yet our Lord commenced with
bread
and the supports of an earthly life, that from such a beginning he might
carry us higher. We do not ask that our daily bread may be given to us before we
ask that we may be reconciled to God, as if the perishing food of the belly were
to be considered more valuable than the eternal salvation of the soul: but we do
so that we may ascend, as it were by steps, from earth to heaven. Since God
condescends to nourish our bodies, there can be no doubt whatever, that he is
far more careful of our spiritual life. This kind and gentle manner of treating
us raises our confidence higher.
Some are of opinion, that
to<n a]zton hJmw~n
ejpiou>sion means our supersubstantial
bread. This is exceedingly absurd. The reason assigned by Erasmus is
not only frivolous, but inconsistent with piety. He reckons it improbable that,
when we come into the presence of God, Christ should enjoin us to make mention
of food. As if this manner of instruction were not to be found in every part of
Scripture, to lead us to the expectation of heavenly blessings, by giving us a
taste of temporal blessings. It is indeed the true proof of our faith, when we
ask nothing but from God, and not only acknowledge him to be the only fountain
of all blessings, but feel that his fatherly kindness extends to the smallest
matters, so that he does not disdain to take care even of our
flesh.
That Christ speaks here of bodily food may easily be
inferred: first, because otherwise the prayer would be defective and incomplete.
We are enjoined, in many passages, to throw all our cares into the bosom of God,
and he graciously promises, that “he will withhold from us
no good thing,”
(<198411>Psalm
84:11.) In a perfect rule of prayer, therefore, some direction must be laid down
as to the innumerable wants of the present life. Besides, the word
sh>meron,
today,
means that we are to ask from God no more than is necessary for the
day: f425
for there is no doubt, that he intended to restrain and guide our desire of
earthly food, to which we are all immoderately addicted. Again, a very frequent
Synecdoche occurs in the word
bread,
under which the Hebrews include every description of food. But here it has a
still more extensive meaning: for we ask not only that the hand of God may
supply us with food, but that we may receive all that is necessary for the
present life.
The meaning is now obvious. We are first commanded to
pray, that God would protect and cherish the life which he has given to us in
the world, and, as we need many supports, that he would supply us with every
thing that he knows to be needful. Now, as the kindness of God flows in
uninterrupted succession to feed us, the bread which he bestows is called
ejpiou>siov,
that is, continual:
f426 for so it may
be rendered. This word suggests to us such a petition
as the following: “O Lord, since our life needs every day new supplies,
may it please thee to grant them to us without interruption.” The adverb
today,
as I said a little ago, is added to restrain our excessive desire, and to
teach us, that we depend
every
moment on the kindness of God, and ought to be content with that portion
which he gives us, to use a common expression, “from day to
day.”
But here an objection may be urged. It is certain,
that Christ has given a rule for prayer, which belongs equally to all the godly.
Now, some of their number are rich men, who have their yearly produce laid up in
store. Why does he command them to ask what they have at home, and to ask every
day those things of which they have an abundant supply for a year? The reply is
easy. These words remind us that, unless God feed us daily, the largest
accumulation of the necessaries of life will be of no avail. Though we may have
abundance of corn, and wine, and every thing else, unless they are watered by
the secret blessing of God, they will suddenly vanish, or we will be deprived of
the use of them, or they will lose their natural power to support us, so that we
shall famish in the midst of plenty. There is therefore no reason to wonder, if
Christ invites the rich and poor indiscriminately to apply to their Heavenly
Father for the supply of their wants. No man will sincerely offer such a prayer
as this, unless he has learned, by the example of the Apostle Paul, “to be
full and to be hungry, to abound and to suffer need,”
(<500412>Philippians
4:12,) to endure patiently his poverty or his humble condition, and not to be
intoxicated by a false confidence in his abundance.
Does any one inquire, why we ask that bread to be
given to us, which we call OUR
bread?
I answer: It is so called, not because it belongs to us by right, but
because the fatherly kindness of God has set it apart for our use. It becomes
ours,
because our Heavenly Father freely bestows it on us for the supply of our
necessities. The fields must, no doubt, be cultivated, labor must be bestowed on
gathering the fruits of the earth, and every man must submit to the toil of his
calling, in order to procure food. But all this does not hinder us from being
fed by the undeserved kindness of God, without which men might waste their
strength to no purpose. We are thus taught, that what we seem to have acquired
by our own industry is his gift. We may likewise infer from this word, that, if
we wish God to feed us, we must not take what belongs to others: for all who
have been taught of God,
(<430645>John
6:45,) whenever they employ this form of prayer, make a declaration that they
desire nothing but what is their own.
12.
And forgive us our
debts. Here it may be proper that we
should be reminded of what I said a little before, that Christ, in arranging the
prayers of his people, did not consider which was first or second in order. It
is written, that our prayers are as it were a wall which hinders our approach to
God,
(<235902>Isaiah
59:2,) or a cloud which prevents him from beholding us,
(<234422>Isaiah
44:22,) and that
“he hath
covered himself with a cloud, that
our
prayer should not pass
through,”
(<250344>Lamentations
3:44.)
We ought always, therefore, to begin with the
forgiveness of sins: for the first hope of being heard by God beams upon us,
when we obtain his favor; and there is no way in which he is
“pacified toward us,”
(<261663>Ezekiel
16:63,) but by freely pardoning our sins. Christ has included in two petitions
all that related to the eternal salvation of the soul, and to the spiritual
life: for these are the two leading points of the divine covenant, in which all
our salvation consists. He offers to us a free reconciliation by
“not imputing our sins,”
(<470519>2
Corinthians 5:19,) and promises the Spirit, to engrave the righteousness of the
law on our hearts. We are commanded to ask both, and the prayer for obtaining
the forgiveness of sins is placed first.
In Matthew, sins are called
debts,
because they expose us to condemnation at the tribunal of God, and
make us
debtors;
nay more, they alienate us entirely from God, so that there is no hope of
obtaining peace and favor except by pardon. And so is fulfilled what Paul tells
us, that “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of
God,”
(<450323>Romans
3:23,)
“that
every mouth may be stopped, and all
the
world may become guilty before
God,”
(<450319>Romans
3:19.)
For, though the righteousness of God shines, to some
extent, in the saints, yet, so long as they are surrounded by the flesh, they
lie under the burden of sins. None will be found so pure as not to need the
mercy of God, and if we wish to partake of it, we must feel our wretchedness.
Those who dream of attaining such perfection in this world, as to be free from
every spot and blemish, not only renounce their sins, but renounce Christ
himself, from whose Church they banish themselves. For, when he commands
all his disciples to betake themselves to him daily for the forgiveness of sins,
every one, who thinks that he has no need of such a remedy, is struck out of the
number of the disciples.
Now, the forgiveness, which we here ask to be
bestowed on us, is inconsistent with satisfaction, by which the world endeavors
to purchase its own deliverance. For that creditor is not said to
forgive,
who has received payment and asks nothing more,—but he who willingly
and generously departs from his just claim, and frees the
debtor.
The ordinary distinction between
crime
and
punishment
has no place here: for
debts
unquestionably mean liability to punishment. If they are freely forgiven us,
all compensations must disappear. And there is no other meaning than this in the
passage of Luke, though he calls them
sins:
for in no other way does God grant the pardon of them, than by removing the
condemnation which they deserve.
As we forgive our
debtors. This condition is added, that
no one may presume to approach God and ask forgiveness, who is not pure and free
from all resentment. And yet the forgiveness, which we ask that God would give
us, does not depend on the forgiveness which we grant to others: but the design
of Christ was, to exhort us, in this manner, to forgive the offenses which have
been committed against us, and at the same time, to give, as it were, the
impression of his seal, to ratify the confidence in our own forgiveness. Nor is
any thing inconsistent with this in the phrase used by Luke,
kai<
ga<r, for
we
also. Christ did not intend to point out
the cause, but only to remind us of the feelings which we ought to cherish
towards brethren, when we desire to be reconciled to God. And certainly, if the
Spirit of God reigns in our hearts, every description of ill-will and revenge
ought to be banished. The Spirit is the witness of our adoption,
(<450816>Romans
8:16,) and therefore this is put down simply as a mark, to distinguish the
children of God from strangers. The name
debtors
is here given, not to those who owe us money, or any other service, but to
those who are indebted to
us on account of offenses which they
have committed.
13.
And lead us not into
temptation. Some people have split this
petition into two. This is wrong: for the nature of the subject makes it
manifest, that it is one and the same petition. The connection of the words also
shows it: for the word
but,
which is placed between, connects the two clauses together, as Augustine
judiciously explains. The sentence ought to be resolved thus,
That we may not be led into
temptation, deliver us from evil. The
meaning is: “We are conscious Of our own weakness, and desire to enjoy the
protection of God, that we may remain impregnable against all the assaults of
Satan.” We showed from the former petition, that no man can be reckoned a
Christian, who does not acknowledge himself to be a sinner; and in the same
manner, we conclude from this petition, that we have no strength for living a
holy life, except so far as we obtain it from God. Whoever implores the
assistance of God to overcome temptations, acknowledges that, unless God
deliver
him, he will be constantly falling.
f427
The word
temptation
is often used generally for any kind of trial. In this sense God is said to
have tempted Abraham,
(<012201>Genesis
22:1,) when he tried his faith. We are
tempted
both by adversity and by prosperity: because each of them is an occasion of
bringing to light feelings which were formerly concealed. But here it denotes
inward
temptation,
which may be fitly called the scourge of the devil, for exciting our lust.
It would be foolish to ask, that God would keep us free from every thing which
makes trial of our faith. All wicked emotions, which excite us to sin, are
included under the name of
temptation.
Though it is not impossible that we may feel such pricks in our minds, (for,
during the whole course of our life, we have a constant warfare with the flesh,)
yet we ask that the Lord would not cause us to be thrown down, or suffer us to
be overwhelmed, by
temptations.
In order to express this truth more clearly, that we
are liable to constant stumbling and ruinous falls, if God does not uphold us
with his hand, Christ used this form of expression,
(mh<
eijsene>gkh|v,)
Lead us not into
temptation: or, as some render it,
Bring us not into
temptation. It is certainly true, that
“every man is tempted,” as the Apostle James says, (1:14) “by
his own lust:” yet, as God not only gives us up to the will of Satan, to
kindle the flame of lust, but employs him as the agent of his wrath, when he
chooses to drive men headlong to destruction, he may be also said, in a way
peculiar to himself, to lead them
into temptation. In the same sense,
“an evil spirit from the Lord” is said to have “seized
or troubled Saul,”
(<091614>1
Samuel 16:14:) and there are many passages of Scripture to the same purpose. And
yet we will not therefore say, that God is the author of evil: because, by ,
giving men over to a reprobate mind,”
(<450128>Romans
1:28,) he does not exercise a confused tyranny, but executes his just, though
secret f428
judgments.
Deliver us from
evil. The word
evil
(ponhrou~)
may either be taken in the neuter gender, as signifying
the evil
thing, or in the masculine gender, as
signifying the evil
one. Chrysostom refers it to the Devil,
who is the contriver of every thing evil, and, as the deadly enemy of our
salvation, is continually fighting against us.
f429 But it may, with equal propriety, be
explained as referring to
sin.
There is no necessity for raising a debate on this point: for the meaning
remains nearly the same, that we are in danger from the devil and from sin, if
the Lord does not protect and
deliver
us.
For thine is the
kingdom. It is surprising that this
clause, which agrees so well with the rest of the prayer, has been left out by
the Latins:
f430 for it was not added merely for the
purpose of kindling our hearts to seek the glory of God, and of reminding us
what ought to be the object of our prayers; but likewise to teach us, that our
prayers, which are here dictated to us, are founded on God alone, that we may
not rely on our own merits.
MATTHEW 6:14-15; LUKE
11:25-26
|
MATTHEW
6:14-15
|
LUKE
11:25-26
|
|
14. For if you shall forgive men
their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
15. But if you shall not forgive men their trespasses,
neither will you Father forgive your trespasses.
|
25. And when ye shall stand
praying, forgive, if you have any thing against any one, that your Father also,
who is in heaven, may forgive you your trespasses. 26. But if
you shall not forgive, neither will your Father, who is inheaven, forgive you
your trespasses.
|
Here Christ only explains the reason why that
condition was added, Forgive us,
as we forgive. The reason is, that God
will not be ready to hear us, unless we also show ourselves ready to grant
forgiveness to those who have offended us. If we are not harder than iron, this
exhortation ought to soften us, and render us disposed to forgive
offenses.
f431 Unless God pardon us every day many
sins, we know that we are ruined in innumerable ways: and on no other condition
does he admit us to pardon, but that we pardon our brethren whatever offenses
they have committed against us. Those who refuse to forget the injuries which
have been done to them, devote themselves willingly and deliberately to
destruction, and knowingly prevent God from forgiving
them. f432
MATTHEW
6:16-19
|
MATTHEW
6:16-18
|
|
16. Moreover, when you shall fast,
be not, like the hypocrites, dejected:
f433
for they disfigure their faces, that it may be
evident to men that they fast. Verily I say to you, they have their reward.
17. But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thy head, and wash
thy face, 18. That it may not appear to men that thou
fastest, but to thy Father, who is in secret, and thy Father, who seeth in
secret, will reward thee openly.
|
He again returns to the former doctrine: for,
having begun to rebuke vain ostentation in alms and prayer, he laid down, before
proceeding farther, the rule for praying in a right manner. The same
injunction is now given to his disciples about
fasting,
which he had formerly given about
prayers
and
alms,
not to be too solicitous to obtain the applause of spectators, but to have
God as the witness of their actions. When he bids them
anoint their head, and wash their
face, his language is
hyperbolical:
f434 for Christ does not withdraw us from one
kind of hypocrisy, to lead us into another.
f435 He does not enjoin us to counterfeit
splendor, or exhort us to temperance in food in such a manner, as to encourage
the luxuries of ointments and of dress: but merely exhorts us to preserve
moderation, without any thing new or affected;—in short, that the
fastings, in which we engage, should make no change in our accustomed way of
living.
Thy Father will reward
thee. When he promises a reward from God
to
fastings, this mode of expression, as we
said a little before with respect to prayer, is not strictly accurate. There is
a wide difference, indeed, between
prayer
and
fastings.
Prayer holds the first rank among the antics of piety: but fasting is
a doubtful operation, and does not, like
alms,
belong to the class of those actions which God requires and approves. It is
pleasing to God, only so far as it is directed to another object: and that is,
to train us to abstinence, to subdue the lust of the flesh, to excite us to
earnestness in prayer, and to testify our repentance, when we are affected by
the view of the tribunal of God. The meaning of Christ’s words is:
“God will one day show that he was pleased with those good works, which
appeared to be lost, because they were concealed from the eyes of
men.”
MATTHEW 6:19-21; LUKE
12:33-34
|
MATTHEW
6:19-21
|
LUKE
12:33-34
|
|
19. Lay not up for yourselves
treasures on the earth, where rust and the moth consume, where theives break
through and steal. 20. But lay up for yourselves treasures in
heaven, where neither rust nor moth consumes, and where thieves do not break
through nor steal. 21. For where your treasure shall be,
there will also your heart be.
|
33. Sell what ye possess, and give
alms. Prepare for yourselves bags, which do not grow old, a treasure in heaven
which does not fail, where the theif approaches not, nor moth corrupteth.
34. For where your treasure shall be, there will also your
heart be.
|
Matthew 6:19.
Lay not
up. This deadly plague reigns everywhere
throughout the world. Men are grown mad with an insatiable desire of gain.
Christ charges them with folly, in collecting wealth with great care, and then
giving up their happiness to
moths
and to
rust,
or exposing it as a prey to thieves. What is more unreasonable than to place
their property, where it may perish of itself, or be carried off by men
? f436
Covetous men, indeed, take no thought of this. They lock up their riches in
well-secured chests, but cannot prevent them from being exposed to
thieves
or to
moths.
They are blind and destitute of sound judgment, who give themselves so much
toil and uneasiness in amassing wealth, which is liable to putrefaction, or
robbery, or a thousand other accidents: particularly, when God allows us a place
in heaven for laying up a
treasure, and kindly invites us to enjoy
riches which never perish.
20.
But lay up for yourselves
treasures in heaven. They are said to do
so, who, instead of entangling themselves in the snares of this world, make it
their care and their business to meditate on the heavenly life. In Luke’s
narrative, no mention is made of the contrast between
laying up treasures on the
earth and
laying up treasures in
heaven; and he refers to a different
occasion for the command of Christ
to prepare bags, which do not
grow old: for he had previously said,
Sell what you possess, and give
alms. It is a harsh and unpleasant thing
for men to strip themselves of their own wealth; and with the view of
alleviating their uneasiness, he holds out a large and magnificent hope of
remuneration. Those who assist their poor brethren
on the earth lay up for
themselves treasures in heaven,
according to the saying of Solomon,
“He that hath pity
upon the poor lendeth to the Lord, and that which he hath given will he pay him
again,”
(<201917>Proverbs
19:17.)
The command to
sell
possessions must not be literally
interpreted, as if a Christian were not at liberty to retain any thing for
himself. He only intended to show, that we must not be satisfied with bestowing
on the poor what we can easily spare, but that we must not refuse to part with
our estates, if their revenue does not supply the wants of the poor. His meaning
is, “Let your liberality go so far as to lessen your patrimony, and
dispose of your lands.”
21.
Where your treasure shall
be. By this statement Christ proves that
they are unhappy men who have their treasures laid up on the earth: because
their happiness is uncertain and of short duration. Covetous men cannot be
prevented from breathing in their hearts a wish for heaven: but Christ lays down
an opposite principle, that, wherever men imagine the greatest happiness to be,
there they are surrounded and confined. Hence it follows, that they who desire
to be happy in the world
f437 renounce heaven. We know how carefully
the philosophers conducted their inquiries respecting the supreme
good. f438
It was the chief point on which they bestowed their labor, and justly: for it is
the principle on which the regulation of our life entirely depends, and the
object to which all our senses are directed. If honor is reckoned the supreme
good, the minds of men must be wholly occupied with ambition: if money,
covetousness will immediately predominate: if pleasure, it will be impossible to
prevent men from sinking into brutal indulgence. We have all a natural desire to
pursue happiness;
f439 and the consequence is, that false
imaginations carry us away in every direction. But if we were honestly and
firmly convinced that our happiness is in heaven, it would be easy for us to
trample upon the world, to despise earthly blessings, (by the deceitful
attractions of which the greater part of men are fascinated,) and to rise
towards heaven. For this reason Paul, with the view of exciting believers to
look upwards, and of exhorting them to meditate on the heavenly life,
(<510301>Colossians
3:1,) presents to them Christ, in whom alone they ought to seek perfect
happiness; thus declaring, that to allow their souls to grovel on the earth
would be inconsistent and unworthy of those whose
treasure is in
heaven.
MATTHEW 6:22-24; LUKE
11:34-36; 16:13
|
MATTHEW
6:22-24
|
LUKE
11:34-36
|
|
22. The
light
f440 of
the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye shall be simple, thy whole body
shall be luminous. 23. But if thine eye shall be evil, thy
whole body shall be dark. Therefore, if the light which is in thee is darkness,
how great is that darkness! 24. No man can serve two masters:
for either he will hate the one, and love the other, or he will hold to one, and
neglect the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.
|
34. The
light
f441 of
the body is the eye: if thine eye therefore shall be simple, thy whole body
shall be luminous: but if it shall be evil, thy whole body also shall be dark.
36. If therefore thy whole body shall be luminous, not having
any part dark, the whole shall be luminous, as when a candle enlightens thee by
its brightness.
LUKE
14:13
13. No
servant can serve two master: for either he will hate the one, and love the
other, or will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and
mammon.
|
Matthew 6:22.
The light of the body is the
eye. We must bear in mind, as I have
already hinted, that what we find here are detached sentences, and not a
continued discourse. The substance of the present statement is, that men go
wrong through carelessness, because they do not keep their eye fixed, as they
ought to do, on the proper object. For whence comes it, that they so shamefully
wander, or dash themselves, or stumble, but because, having corrupted their
judgment by choosing rather to follow their own lusts than the righteousness of
God, they not only extinguish the light of reason, which ought to have regulated
their life, but change it altogether into darkness.
When Christ calls
the eye the light of the
body,
f442 he employs a comparison which
means, that neither the hands, nor the feet, nor the belly, serves to direct men
in walking, but that the eye alone is a sufficient guide to the rest of the
members. If the hands and feet are foolishly and improperly directed, the blame
of the mistake ought to be charged on the eyes, which do not perform their duty.
We must now apply this comparison to the mind. The affections may be regarded
individually as its members: but as they are blind in themselves, they need
direction. Now, God has given reason to guide them, and to act the part of a
lantern
in showing them the way. But what is the usual result? All the soundness of
judgment which had been given to men is corrupted and perverted by themselves,
so that not even one spark of light continues to dwell in them.
A simple
eye means an eye that has no speck, or
diseased humor, or any other defect.
An evil
eye
(ponhro<n)
f443 means a
diseased
eye. A luminous body means one that is
enlightened,
so as to have all its actions properly regulated. A
dark
body is one which is led into numerous mistakes by a confused movement. We
see, then, as I have already said, that these words reprove the indolence of
men, who neglect to open their eyes for the guidance of their
affections.
The inference which the Papists draw from this
passage, that men possess as much reason and wisdom, as to be free to choose
either good or evil, is mere trifling. For Christ does not here inform us what
ability we possess, but how we ought to walk, by having our eye fixed on a
certain object; and at the same time shows, that the whole course of human life
is dark, because no man proposes for himself a proper object, but all permit
themselves to pursue eagerly what is evil. I confess, indeed, that men naturally
possess reason, to distinguish between vices and virtues; but I say that it is
so corrupted by sin, that it fails at every step. Meanwhile, it does not follow,
that men do not voluntarily bring darkness on themselves, as if they shut their
eyes to avoid the light which was offered to them, because they are knowingly
and willingly carried after their own
lusts.
23.
If the light which is in thee
be darkness. Light signifies that small
portion of reason, which continues to exist in men since the fall of Adam: and
darkness
signifies gross and brutal affections. The meaning is, we ought not to
wonder, if men wallow so disgracefully, like beasts, in the filth of vices, for
they have no reason which might restrain the blind and dark lusts of the flesh.
The
light is said to be turned into
darkness,
not only when men permit the wicked lusts of the flesh to overwhelm the
judgment of their reason, but also when they give up their minds to wicked
thoughts, and thus degenerate into beasts. For we see how wickedly men change
into craft any measure of wisdom which had been given them, how they “dig
deep (as the prophet says) to hide their counsel from the Lords”
(<232915>Isaiah
29:15,) how they trust to their own resources, and openly dishonor God; in a
word, how desirous they are to show their ingenuity, in innumerable ways, for
their own destruction. Christ has good grounds for declaring, that thick and
appalling darkness must of necessity reign in the life of men, when they choose
to be blind.
This is also the meaning of the words which are found
in the Gospel of Luke, with this difference, that Christ there connects the
present statement with one which was formerly explained, that
men do not light a candle, and
put it under a bushel,
(<400515>Matthew
5:15) and again, instead of this clause,
if the light which is in thee be
darkness, gives the exhortation,
see that the light which is in
thee be not darkness. The meaning is,
“See that thy mind, which ought to have shone, like a candle, to guide all
thy actions, do not darken and mislead thy whole life.” He afterwards
adds, that, when the body is
enlightened by the eye, the greatest
regularity is found in all its members, as
the light of a
candle spreads and penetrates into every
part of the room.
24.
No man can serve two
masters. Christ returns to the former
doctrine, the object of which was to withdraw his disciples from covetousness.
He had formerly said, that the heart of man is bound and fixed upon its
treas