Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

of man shall come in the glory of his Father."Comp. Mark viii. 38. And the like in many other places.

But in none of the gospels does our Lord so frequently and expressly ascribe all his authority to God the Father, as in St. John's gospel: thereby plainly shewing the guilt of those who did not receive him. John v. 19. "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do.”—Ver. 30. I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father who hath sent me." Ver. 36, 37. "But I have greater witness than that of John. For the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.". -Ver. 43. "I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not."-And at ver.. 45-47, our Lord appeals to Moses and his writings, which were allowed to be of divine original, as bearing testimony to him. Then ch. vi. 27." him hath God the Father sealed." Ch.. vii. 16. "I am not alone. But I, and the Father, that sent me." Ch. x. 36. " Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world: thou blasphemest: because I said, I am the Son of God?" And to add no more, ch. xi. 41, 42. When he When he wrought that great miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead, "Jesus lift up his eyes and said, Father, I thank thee, that thou hast heard me: and I knew that thou hearest me always; but because of the people which stand by, I said it, that they may believe thou hast sent me.'

Agreeable to all this is the introduction, where, beside other, are these expressions: "He: came to his own. And his own received him not. The word was made flesh, and dwelled among us And we saw his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father.The law was given by Moses; but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at, any time, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him." So ends the introduction. And it is what St. John has largely and fully shown in his gospel.

But it will be asked: whence came it to pass, that St. John made use of that term, "the Word?"

I answer: I am of opinion, that it was not out of regard to Philo, or any Platonic writers. But

I suppose, this way of speaking to have been very common with the Jewish people, and,,

perhaps, more especially with those of them, who were most zealous for the law, and most exempt from foreign, and philosophical speculations. Who by "the Word," or "the Word of God," understood, not a spirit separate from God, and inferior to him, but God himself, as St. John' does.

[ocr errors]

Numb. xxiii. 8. "How shall I curse, whom God has not cursed? or, how shall I defy, whom the Lord has not defied?" Upon which verse Patrick says, In the Jerusalem Targum this verse is thus paraphrased: "How shall I curse the house of Israel, when the Word of the Lord has • blessed them? Or, how shall I diminish the family of Israel, when the word of the Lord has. multiplied them ?"",

[ocr errors]

It is well known, that in the Chaldee paraphrases, it is very common to put Mimra Jehovah, the word of the Lord, for Jehovah, or God. When those paraphrases were made, is not certain; whether before, or after the time of our Saviour: but their great antiquity is generally allowed.. And it is very probable, that this way of speaking was common, and much used before. . It is likely,' says a learned friend, that Mimra Jehovah was used before the paraphrases were com.mitted to writing, because it would be an unreasonable thing to use a phrase, which the

Plerique observant, similem locutionem frequenter occurrere in Paraphrasibus Chaldaïcis, quæ veterum Hebræorum catechesin, et antiquas loquendi formulas, exhibent. Quoties de Deo nobiscum conversante sermo est, toties vero Targumistæ, pro Deo, vel Jehovâ, substituerunt verbum Jehova. Pro exemplo hæc paucula ex innumeris sunto. Gen. xxi. 20. Deus fuit cum illo. Onkelos. Verbum Domini fuit illi auxilio. Ib. comm. 22. Deus est tecum. Onkelos. Verbum Domini enim tibi subsidio. Deut. xx. 1. Ne timeto ab eis. Nam Deus tuus tecum est. Onkelos.-eo quod Jehova Deus tous, Verbum ejus auxilio tibi est, quod eduxit te ex terrâ Ægypti. Num. xi. 20. Eo quod reprobâsti Jehovani. Onkelos. Eo quod fastidistis Verbum Domini, cujus Shechinah (Divina Majestas) habitat in vobis. Exod. xvi. 8. Non contra nos murmurationes vestræ, sed contra Jehovam. Onkelos. -sed contra Verbum Jevæ. Infinita sunt similia. Unde colligitur, receptum eo tempore Hebræis fuisse, ut Deum, quâtenus cum populo suo agit, Verbum vocaverint: cui ea VOL. III.

attribuerunt, quæ Dei sunt. Wits. Miscell. Sacr. tom, ii. p. 88, 89. Exercita. iii. πɛpı 78 λ078. sect. ii.

⚫ Omnia igitur talia conscribere volens discipulus Domini, et regulam veritatis constituere in ecclesià quia est unus Deus Omnipotens, qui per Verbum suum omnia fecit, et visibilia et invisibilia; significans quoque, quoniam per Verbum, per quod Deus perfecit conditionem, in hoc et salutem his qui in conditione sunt, præstitit hominibus; sic inchoavit in eâ, quæ est secundum evangelium, doctrinâ: In principio erat Verbum. Iren 1. 3. cap. xi. in Massuet.

Et Cerinthus autem quidam in Asiâ, non a primo Deo factum esse mundum docuit, sed a Virtute quâdam valde separatâ, et distante ab eâ Principalitate, quæ est super omnia. Id. 1. 1. cap. xxv. al. 26. in.

Deus autem, totus existens mens, et totus existens logos, quod cogitat, hoc et loquitur; et quod loquitur, id et cogitat. Cogitatio enim ejus logos, et logos mens, et omnia concludens mens, ipse et Pater. Id. 1. 2. cap. xxviii. n. 5. p. 57.

21

[ocr errors]

• common people did not understand: for it is supposed, that the paraphrases were chiefly made

for them."

Let me add, that the use of this phrase, "the Word of God," or "the Word of the Lord," as equivalent to God himself, seems to be founded in the original language of the Old Testament. In behalf of which I would allege the following texts. Gen. i. 1. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Ver. 3. "God said: let there be light. And there was light." Comp. Ps. xxxiii. 6. "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." And Ps. cv. 19. "Until the time that this word came:

the Word of the Lord tried him."

[ocr errors]

When St. John says, ch. i. 1, 2, 3." In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." He seems to allude to what Solomon says of wisdom in the book of Proverbs, particularly, the eighth chapter. And how wisdom ought to be understood as spoken of by Solomon, is shewn, if I may be allowed to say so, in a discourse upon Prov. viii. 17. Moreover the beginning of St. John's gospel should be compared with the beginning of his first epistle, particularly, ch. i. 1, 2. According to the account now given, what St. John says at the beginning, is a very proper introduction to his gospel: where he largely shows the guilt of those, who rejected the manifestation of the wisdom, the word, the will of God, in the person of Jesus.

b

Upon the whole, I see no reason to think, that, in the introduction to his gospel, St. John opposed any Christian heresies, or had any regard to them.

Consequently, the foregoing argument, that St. John's gospel was written before the destruc

tion of Jerusalem, or about the time of that event remains entire.

[ocr errors]

XI. I shall now mention some observations upon this gospel.

1. There is no need to show here, particularly, from the gospel itself, as we did of the former evangelists, that St. John did not write his gospel till after converts had been made from among Gentiles: because it is allowed by all, that St. John did not write till after the other evangelists, about the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, or afterwards: before which time the apostles must have left Judea, to go abroad, and preach to Gentiles. Nevertheless one signal passage may be here taken notice of, which is not far from the beginning of this gospel. Ch. i. 11, 12, He came to his own, and his own received him not: but as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name. Which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." That is, 'he came to the Jews, and first appeared, and taught among them, and they generally rejected him. But upon all who believed in him, whether Jews or Gentiles, of whatever country or nation, or people they were, he bestowed the privilege of being the people of God, and all the blessings "appertaining to them.'

с

2. Eusebius says, The other three evangelists have recorded the actions of our Saviour for one year only, after the imprisonment of John the Baptist.' Jerom speaks to the like purpose in his book of Illustrious Men, just now transcribed. But it should have been said, 'one year, and somewhat more:' meaning the time and actions of our Lord's most public ministry. For it seems to me, that the ancients supposed our Lord's ministry to have lasted, in the whole, somewhat more than two years; as was shown Vol. i. p. 508, 509. Eusebius indeed computed our Lord's ministry to have consisted of three years and a half, and supposed St. John's gospel to have in it four passovers. He seems to have been the first Christian, who advanced that opinion: and he is now generally followed by harmonizers of the gospels, and by ecclesiastical historians. Sir Isaac Newton' however computes five passovers in our Saviour's ministry; as does likewise Dr. Edward Wells in his Historical Geography of the New Testament. And others may be of the same opinion, or make more. But none of these opinions appear to me to have any foundation in the gospels. The opinion of Eusebius, and those who follow him, is much more probable, than theirs who yet farther enlarge the number of the passovers of our Saviour's ministry. The first passover in St. John is that mentioned by him ch. ii. 13. At ch. v. 1, it is said: "After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem."

* See the passage of Vitringa quoted just now, at note b p. 240. See the Disconrses at the end of the work.. See Vol. i. p. 619. See Vol. ii. p. 369.

See before, p. 228.

Observations upon Daniel, p. 156, 157.

They who follow Eusebius, and make four passovers in our Lord's ministry, reckon this feast to be a passover. But they who compute his ministry to have lasted only two years, and somewhat more, suppose this to be some other feast, possibly, the feast of tabernacles, next succeeding the passover, mentioned ch. ii. 13. At ch. vi. 4. "And the passover, a feast of the Jews was nigh:" this, according to different computations, is either the second, or the third passover in our Lord's ministry. The third, or, according to others, the fourth, is that mentioned by all the evangelists, at which our Lord suffered. It is mentioned by St. John, ch. xi. 55. and xii. 1.

3. St. John has omitted the greatest part of those things, which are recorded by the other evangelists: which much confirms the testimony of ancient writers, that the first three gospels were written, and published among the faithful before St. John wrote; that they were brought to him, and that he affirmed the truth of their relations, but said, that some discourses and miracles of our Saviour were omitted by them, which might be usefully recorded.

Indeed, there is little or nothing in his gospel, which is not new and additional, except the account of our Saviour's prosecution, death, and resurrection, where all four coincide in many particulars: though even here also St. John has divers things peculiar to himself. In St. John's gospel is no account of our Saviour's nativity, nor of his baptism by John; though, undoubtedly, it is there supposed, and referred to. He takes no notice of our Saviour's temptation in the wilderness, nor of the call, or names of the twelve apostles, nor of their mission in our Saviour's life time, nor of our Lord's parables, or other discourses of his, recorded by them, nor of our Saviour's journies, of which they give an account, nor any of those predictions relating to the desolations of Jerusalem, which are in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Nor has he any miracles recorded by them, excepting only, that one of the multiplication of small provision for feeding five thousand, with the extraordinary circumstance of the return to Capernaum from the country, where that miracle had been wrought, ch. vi. 4-21. And it is likely, that this miracle was recorded by him, for the sake of the discourses, to which it gave occasion, and which follow there, ver. 22-71.

However, it should be observed, that he has one thing recorded by all the evangelists, Peter's striking a servant of the high priest, and cutting off his ear. Ch. xviii. 10. "Then Simon Peter having a sword, drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus." Which, as St. Luke informs us, Jesus touched, and healed. ch. xxii. 51. Peter's action is mentioned by all the three evangelists, Matt. xxvi. 51. Mark xiv. 47. Luke xxii. 50. But St. John alone mentions Peter by name, and the name of the servant. Ι thought proper to take notice of this, though St. John does not particularly mention the miracle of healing.

St. John likewise, ch. ii. 14—22, gives an account of our Lord's cleansing the temple at his first passover, when he went to Jerusalem. All the other evangelists have a like account of our Lord's cleansing the temple, at his last passover, Matt. xxi. 12, 13. Mark xi. 15, 16. Luke xix. 45, 46. But I suppose them to be quite different actions, and that our blessed Lord twice cleansed the temple, as already shown.

4. Though the first three evangelists have not particularly recorded our Saviour's several journies to Jerusalem, as St. John has done, but have only given a particular account of his preaching there at his last passover, they were not unacquainted with them.

[ocr errors]

This may be concluded from divers things in their histories. To those, who came to apprehend him, our Lord said: "I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.' Matt. xxvi. 55. And compare Mark xiv. 49. Luke xxii. 53. And among the accusations brought against him by the Jewish Rulers before Pilate, they say: "He stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, beginning from Galilee, to this place," Luke xxiii. 5.* Peter preaching at Jerusalem, soon after our Lord's ascension, says: "Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles, and wonders, and signs: which God did by him in the midst of you, as yourselves also know," Acts ii. 22. And at the house of Cornelius, in Cæsarea : "That word, you know, which was published throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee," Acts x, 37-And we are witnesses of all things, which he did, both in the land of the Jews, and at Jerusalem," ver. 39. And it appears from their histories, that our Lord's fame had early reached Jerusalem. Many attended him in Galilee from thence, and from other parts. Says St. Matthew: "And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Judea, and from beyond Jordan," ch. iv. 25. Comp. Mark. iii. 7, 8. Again:

"And the Scribes, which came from Jerusalem, said: He has Beelzebub."-Mark in. 22—30. Compare Matt. ix. 34. Luke xi. 14-26." Then came to Jesus Scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem," Matt. xv. 1. Compare Mark vii. 1. And says St. Luke, ch. v. 17. “ And it came to pass on a certain day, as he was teaching, that there were Pharisees, and doctors of the law sitting by, which were come out of every town of Galilee, and Judea, and Jerusalem; and the power of the Lord was present to heal them." And in every one of the evangelists we may meet with Scribes and Pharisees opposing our Lord, watching his words and actions, cavilling with him, and reflecting upon him, and his disciples.

Moreover, in St. Luke, ch. ix. 51-56, is an account of a remarkable incident, when our Lord was going from Galilee, through Samaria to Jerusalem, at one of their feasts: supposed by some to be the feast of tabernacles, by others the feast of dedication, preceding his last passover. See likewise Luke xiii. 22, and xvii. 11.

a

However, after all, I do not think it was needful, that our Lord should go often to Jerusalem, or that all his journies thither, and discourses there, should be recorded. It was indeed highly expedient, that his ministry should be public: so it might be, without going often to Jerusalem. John the Baptist was a man of great reputation, though he never went up to Jerusalem during the time of his showing himself unto Israel, that we know of, Luke i. 80. And it is manifest from the first three Evangelists, as well as from St. John, that our Lord's ministry was very public, and well known in all parts of Judea, and the regions round about, and to men of all ranks therein. In them we find our Lord to have been notified before-hand by John the Baptist. He sent out once his twelve apostles, and then seventy other disciples, "two by two, to go before him, and prepare men for him, in every city and place where he should come." In them we find him teaching in synagogues, in cities, and villages, and desert places, crowded by throngs, attended by multitudes of people, and miraculously feeding at one time five thousand, at another four thousand men, beside women and children.

It was fit, that our Lord's ministry should be very public; it is manifest, from all the four evangelists, that it was so; which cannot but be the ground of great satisfaction to us.

5. The genuineness of the twenty-first or last chapter of St. John's gospel ought not to be contested.

с

Grotius indeed was of opinion, that St. John concluded his gospel with the words, which are at the end of the twentieth chapter: and that what is in the twenty-first chapter was added after St. John's death by the church of Ephesus.

с

[ocr errors]

Against that opinion the general, or even universal consent of manuscripts and versions is a great objection. For it is very probable, that this gospel was published before St. John's death. And if there had been an edition without this chapter, it is very likely, that it would have been wanting in some copies. To which may be added, that we do not find, that any one of the ancient christian writers ever made a question, whether this chapter was composed by St. John, or by another. Finally, the style is St. John's. In chapter xix. 35. "And he that saw it bare record; and his record is true: and he knoweth, that he says true." Here xxi. 24. "This is the disciple, which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true." Compare likewise ver. 7, and 20. The last words of the chapter, at ver. 25, are these: "And there are also many other things, which Jesus did: the which if they should be written every one, I suppose, that even the world itself could not contain the books that

a Vid. Cleric. Harmon. p. 234, 235.

b See Dr. Doddridge's Family Expositor. Sect. 127. Vol. ii. P. 183.

Omnino arbitror, quæ hic sequuntur, conclusionem esse totius operis, et ibi finiisse Joannem librum, quem edidit. At, sicut caput ultimum Pentateuchi, et caput ultimum Josuæ, post Mosis et Josua mortem additum est a Synedrio Hebræorum; ita et caput, quod sequitur, post mortem Joannis additum ab Ecclesià Ephesinâ, hoc maxime fine, ut ostenderetur impletum quod de longævitate ac non violentâ morte Joannis Dominus prædixerat, &c. Grot. ad Jo. xx. 30.

Cæterum in tanto codicum et versionum consensu, eoque prorsus universali, cogitari non debebat, caput hoc ab ecclesiâ. demum Ephesinà accessisse. Quis enim negare tuto potest, Evangelium Joannis ante ipsius obitum, adeoque ante additum hoc, quod creditur, supplementum accessisse? Et quis

crediderit, vel sic omnes codices in exhibendo isto capite tam: constanter consentire potuisse? Wolf. in Joh. cap. xxi. in.

с

Rejicimus hic sententiam eorum, qui ab aliâ manu, quam ipsius Joannis Evangelista hoc caput esse adjectum putant. Nam ita clare stylum redolet Apostoli, ut, si aliquis alius id adjecisset, non sine impostura istud facere potuisset. Neque enim se Joannem vocat, sed more suo discipulum, quem Jesus amabat. ver. 7. 20. Tum hæc addit: Hic est discipulus ille, qui de his testatur, et hæc scripsit. ver. 24. Quæ defendi non possunt a mendacio, si quisquam alius præter Apostolum hoc caput adjecisset. Adde, quod diligentissimi circa tales circumstantias Patres, Eusebius, Hieronymus, atque alii, non ita plane silentio id involvissent, &c. Fr. Lamp. in Jo. Evang. cap. xxi. tom. III. p. 720, 721. Vid. et Mill. Proleg. num. 249, 250.

should be written.". Which clause is evidently from the same person, who wrote ver. 30, and 31, of ch. xx. Here the evangelist seems to check himself, and to determine not to proceed any farther. For if he should attempt to commit to writing every thing which Jesus had said and done, he should never come to an end.

Says Dr. Whitby upon ch. xx. 31. Some think, that St. John here ended his gospel, and that the following chapter was written by some other hands. But these words give no ground ⚫ for that imagination: since other apostles, after they seem to have concluded their epistles, add some new matter: as may be seen in the conclusions of the epistles to the Romans, and to the • Hebrews.' See Rom. ch. xv. and xvi. Heb. xiii. 21-25. I would likewise refer to Mr. Lenfant's note upon ch. xxi. 24, who also asserts the genuineness of this last chapter.

CHAP. X.

The Question considered, whether any of the first three Evangelists had seen the Gospels of the others' before he wrote.

HERE I shall in the first place mention the different sentiments of learned moderns concerning this point. And then I intend to consider the merits of the question.

a

Calvin in the preface to his Harmony of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, declares it to be his opinion, that St. Mark was so far from having abridged St. Matthew's gospel, that he thinks he had never seen it: which he also supposes to have been St. Luke's ease.

This likewise must have been the opinion of Basnage. For he supposeth St. Luke's to have been the first written of all the gospels. Consequently this evangelist could not borrow either from St. Matthew, or St. Mark.

с

Mr. Whiston in his Harmony of the four Evangelists called St. Mark the epitomizer of St. Matthew. Mr. Jones, in his Vindication of St. Matthew's gospel, well, and largely argued against that opinion..

d

Mr. Dodwell declared his opinion upon this subject after this manner: That none of the ⚫ first three evangelists had seen the others' gospels. Otherwise there could not have been in them so many seeming contradictions, which have exercised the thoughts of inquisitive men • almost ever since the forming of the canon of the New Testament. Certainly if St. Luke had • seen the genealogy of our Lord, which is in St. Matthew, he would not have published another • so very different, without assigning any reason for it.St. Matthew is the only one of our • evangelists, who wrote before St. Luke.St. John did not write till long after St. Luke, nor • did Mark write till after St. Luke, if he wrote his gospel in the same year that he finished the • Acts of the apostles: which seems to me very probable: for the Acts are the second book of the same work, as is evident from what himself says Acts i. 1. St. Luke's gospel therefore was written in the second year of the apostle Paul's imprisonment at Rome: for so far the history of the Acts reaches. But St. Mark seems not to have written until after the death of

[blocks in formation]

produxisset, ne quidem minimâ consilii tam diversi editâ. ratione. S. Matthæus, qui solus e nostris Lucâ erat antiquior, ipse erat auroTYS- -S: Joannis Luca longo erat intervallo in scriptione junior. Junior etiam S. Marcus, si quidem S. Lucas eo scripserit anno Evangelium, quo Acta terminavit Apostolorum. Quod ego sane puto verisimillimum. Sunt enim Acta dEUTEpos ejusdem operis Aoyos, cujus apurov λoyov ipse suum agnoscit evangelium. Act. i. 1.—Ita quo anno scriptum est a S. Lucâ evangelium, secundus fluxerit Apostolo Paulo annus captivitatis Romanæ. Eo enim usque Actorum historia perducta est. S. autem Marcus, seu post obitum Petri, seu non multo ante, scripsisse videtur. Dodw. Diss, Iren, i.. num. xxxix.

« ZurückWeiter »